ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 48 (2008) 1527–1534

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijmactool

Minimisation of kerf tapers in abrasive waterjet machining of alumina

ceramics using a compensation technique
D.K. Shanmugam, J. Wang , H. Liu
School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia

a r t i c l e in fo abstract

Article history: Kerf taper is a special and undesirable geometrical feature inherent to abrasive waterjet (AWJ)
Received 24 April 2008 machining. In this study, an experimental investigation is carried out to minimise or eliminate the kerf
Received in revised form taper in AWJ cutting of alumina ceramics by using a kerf-taper compensation technique. Among the
3 July 2008
cutting parameters studied, kerf-taper compensation angle is found to have the most significant effect
Accepted 7 July 2008
Available online 11 July 2008
on the kerf taper and the kerf taper angle varies almost linearly with this compensation angle. It shows
that with this technique, it is possible to achieve a zero kerf taper angle without compromising the
Keywords: nozzle traverse speed or cutting rate. Depending on the other cutting parameters considered in this
Abrasive waterjet (AWJ) study, it is found that a kerf-taper compensation angle in the range of 4–51 can minimise the kerf taper
Machining
angle to around zero. Using a dimensional analysis technique, a predictive model for the kerf taper angle
Kerf taper
is then developed and verified. An assessment of the model shows that the model can give adequate
Kerf-taper compensation
Alumina ceramics predictions with an average percentage deviation of 6.2% and the standard deviation of 13.4% from the
Predictive model corresponding experimental data.
& 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Abrasive waterjet (AWJ) cutting has various distinct advan-
tages over the other cutting technologies, such as no thermal
distortion, high machining versatility, high flexibility and small
cutting forces, and has been proven to be an effective technology
for processing various engineering materials, particularly ‘‘diffi-
cult-to-cut’’ materials such as alumina ceramics [1–5]. However,
the cutting quality of this technology, such as the kerf taper,
characterised by a wider entry at the top than the exit at the
bottom, is one of the major obstructions that limit its applications
[4–6]. In the last decades, a considerable research effort has been
made towards understanding and minimising the kerf taper in
AWJ cut components. This includes the study of the jet dynamic
characteristics [7–10], and the kerf geometrical features with
respect to the process and jetting parameters [11–13]. It has been
found that in order to minimise the kerf taper angle, low jet
traverse speeds are normally selected at high water pressures.
Such a selection of the traverse speed is not preferred in practice
as it reduces the cutting rate and increases the process costs.
Studies have also been reported to use other cutting techniques,
such as controlled nozzle oscillation [5,14,15] and multipass
 Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 2 9385 5784; fax: +61 2 9663 1222.
E-mail address: jun.wang@unsw.edu.au (J. Wang).
cutting operations [3,4,16] to reduce kerf taper and improve other
cutting performance measures.
Although the reported studies have been useful to reduce the
kerf tapers in AWJ cutting, it is still not possible to minimise or
eliminate this process deficiency, in addition to the sacrifice of the
economic performance when attempting to reduce kerf taper by
using low traverse speeds. In this paper, a kerf-taper compensa-
tion technique is introduced with an aim to eliminate the kerf
tapers when AWJ cutting of an 87% alumina ceramic without the
need to compromise the traverse speed. With this technique,
the nozzle is tilted at an angle (or compensation angle) a in the
direction normal to the nozzle traverse direction, as shown in
Fig. 1. The effect of the compensation angle on the kerf tapers
under different cutting conditions is analysed to provide a
practical guide for parameter selection. A predictive model for
kerf taper angles is then developed using a dimensional analysis
technique. The model is finally verified by comparing the model
predictions with the corresponding experimental data.
2. Experiment
The experiment was conducted on a Flow waterjet cutter that
consisted of a model 5X-60 high output pump, a model M-263
abrasive delivery system and a model Paser II abrasive waterjet
cutting head. A six-axis ABB IRB2400 robot was used to position
and move the cutting head. A 0.254-mm-diameter sapphire orifice

0890-6955/$ - see front matter & 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2008.07.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

1528 D.K. Shanmugam et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 48 (2008) 1527–1534

Nomenclature Vj waterjet velocity (m/s)

u nozzle traverse speed (mm/s)
a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, k1 constants (dimensionless)
dj nozzle diameter (mm) Greek symbols
dp particle diameter (mm)
Hd knoop hardness (MPa) a kerf-taper compensation angle (1)
km mass ratio constant (dimensionless) y kerf taper angle (1)
KIc fracture toughness (MPa m1/2) rp particle density (kg/m3)
ma abrasive mass flow rate (g/s) rw water density (kg/m3)
mw water mass flow rate (g/s) sf material flow stress (MPa)
P water pressure (MPa) c1 momentum transfer coefficient (dimensionless)
Sd standoff distance (mm) c2 discharge coefficient (dimensionless)
V particle velocity (m/s)

Kerf-taper compensation
angle, α
Nozzle

Jet width
Nozzle traverse
direction
Effective width

Compensated wall

Fig. 1. Schematic of AWJ cutting without (left-hand side) and with (right-hand side) kerf-taper compensation.

was used to transform the high-pressure water into a collimated Table 1

jet, with a 76.2-mm-long carbide nozzle (or mixing tube) of Major physical and mechanical properties of the test material (87% alumina
ceramics)
0.762 mm in diameter to form an AWJ. The abrasives used were
80 mesh garnet particles with the average diameter of 0.18 mm Knoop hardness 1000 g, Hd (MPa) 10,400
and density of 4100 kg/m3. Eighty-seven percent alumina ceramic Modulus of elasticity, E (MPa) 276,000
tiles were used as the specimens and their relevant properties are Flow stress, sf (MPa) 20,800
given in Table 1. The dimension of these ceramic tiles was Fracture toughness, KIc (MPa m1/2) 3.5
Compressive strength (MPa) 2480
150  100  12.7 mm. Flexural strength (MPa) 336
For the purpose of this investigation, five major process Tensile strength (MPa) 221
parameters as identified in previous studies [3–5] were chosen Average crystal size (mm) 1.6
which include water pressure, standoff distance and jet traverse
speed, each at four levels, abrasive mass flow rate at three levels,
and kerf-taper compensation angle at six levels. These are shown
in Table 2. The selection of the compensation angles was made Table 2
considering the possible range of the kerf taper angles found in Experimental design
previous studies [3]. It should be noted that a zero kerf-taper
Process variables Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6
compensation angle (or normal cutting) was also included in the
experiment for a comparison purpose. To reduce the number of Traverse speed (mm/s) 0.67 0.83 1 1.17 – –
tests to a manageable size, but yet give sufficient data for a Standoff distance (mm) 2 3 4 5 – –
sensible analysis, a hybrid experimental design scheme was used. Water pressure (MPa) 310 345 380 410 – –
Abrasive mass flow rate (g/s) 7.6 8.3 9 – – –
The orthogonal experimental design technique [17] was used for Compensation angle (1) 0 1 2 3 4 5
the water pressure, standoff distance, nozzle traverse speed and
abrasive mass flow rate, which resulted in 16 combinations. These
16 combinations were then tested under each of the six levels of
kerf-taper compensation angles, i.e. using a full-factorial scheme. two kerf walls was made using a Nikon shadowgraph at a 10
This experimental design yielded 96 test runs. In order to produce magnification. It should be noted that while the compensation
sufficient ‘‘as measured’’ data for statistical analysis and graphic technique could reduce or eliminate the kerf taper on one kerf
representation, additional 27 tests were added to the experi- wall, it might increase the kerf taper on the other. As such, the
mental design. In total, 123 slots of 20 mm length were produced study is limited to minimise the kerf taper on one kerf wall of the
on the ceramic tiles. The measurement of kerf taper angles on the manufactured component where high kerf quality is necessary,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
D.K. Shanmugam et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 48 (2008) 1527–1534
although the data on the other kerf wall (which may be on the
cut-out side) will also be presented for comparison.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Kerf characteristics
Two typical kerf profiles are shown in Fig. 2 for cutting with a
normal cutting and a 51 kerf-taper compensation angle, respec-
tively. It shows that the overall profile produced by cutting with a
kerf-taper compensation angle is similar to that by normal
cutting, i.e. the kerfs are typified by a wider entrance on the top
and the width decreases downwards, so that a kerf taper is
formed. The formation of the kerf taper has been explained
by Hashish and Du Plessis [7] using a jet spreading profile
and strength zone model. Hashish [18] later used this model to
explain the other kerf characteristics in AWJ cutting. These
authors, as well as Chen et al. [19], believed that the particle
velocity at any cross-section of a jet should vary from zero at the
nozzle wall to a maximum at the jet centre. This velocity
distribution corresponds to an energy or strength distribution in
the jet. The inner contoured regions of the jet, as shown in Fig. 1
noted as ‘‘effective width’’, have higher velocities than the outer
regions, resulting in tapered cuts on the material. The kerf width
is dependent on the effective width (or diameter) of the jet, which
in turn depends on the jet strength in that zone and the target
material properties.
Fig. 2(a) reveals that for a normal cutting, the kerf taper angles
on the two kerf walls are generally of the same magnitude. It is
characterised by a small rounded corner at the top edges owing to
the erosion by loose particles as shown in Fig. 1. Under the normal
cutting condition, a minimum kerf taper angle of around 41 was
obtained with a combination of high water pressure, low traverse
speed, low standoff distance and high abrasive mass flow rate.
By contrast, when a kerf-taper compensation angle is used, the
kerf taper on one kerf wall (or the compensated wall) reduces,
whereas that on the other wall increases, as shown in Fig. 2(b).
The study has found that at a certain kerf-taper compensation
angle, a zero kerf taper angle on the compensated wall can be
achieved. By using the kerf-taper compensation technique in
combination with a low traverse speed and a high water pressure
in this study, a minimum kerf taper angle of 0.71 was obtained,
where the negative sign indicates over compensation.
Fig. 2. Kerf profiles from cutting without and with kerf-taper compensation at P ¼ 380 MPa, u ¼ 0.83 mm/s, Sd ¼ 3 mm, ma ¼ 7.6 g/s: (a) without compensation (a ¼ 01),
and (b) with a compensation angle of a ¼ 51.
1529
3.2. Effect of cutting parameters on the kerf taper angles
The variations of kerf taper angle with different cutting
parameters are shown in Fig. 3. Fig. 3(a) shows that the variation
of kerf taper angles with the kerf-taper compensation angles is
almost linear. The kerf taper angle decreases with an increase in
the compensation angle on the compensated wall, but increases
on the other wall. At around 4.51 of compensation angle, it
appears that the kerf taper on the compensated wall becomes
almost zero. On the other wall, the kerf taper angle increases from
about 41 to 91. It is apparent that the kerf-taper compensation
angle has changed the orientation of the kerf so that the taper
angle increases on one kerf wall and decreases on the other.
Fig. 3(b) shows the effect of water pressure on the kerf
taper angles. Within the operating range tested increasing the
water pressure results in a decrease in kerf taper angles for the
two kerf walls. This is attributed to that fact that as the water
pressure increases, the effective width or diameter of the jet
within which the jet has enough energy to cut the material, as
shown in Fig. 1, at the lower part of cutting front increases, so that
the corresponding kerf width is increased and the kerf tapers are
reduced.
The effect of nozzle traverse speed on the kerf taper angles is
shown in Fig. 3(c). It is apparent that an increase in the traverse
speed results in an increase in kerf taper angles on both kerf walls.
This is because an increase in the traverse speed is associated with
a decrease in the jet interaction on a given area of material, which
leads to material erosion by fewer abrasive particles. Therefore,
cutting at a low traverse speed is associated with small kerf taper
angles. Practically, a decrease in traverse speed will increase the
production time. With the kerf compensation technique used in
this study, if only one kerf wall with the manufactured component
is required to have high kerf quality, it is possible to increase the
nozzle traverse speed for productivity gains.
Fig. 3(d) shows the effect of standoff distance on the kerf taper
angle, from which it can be seen that by increasing the standoff
distance, kerf taper angle is increased on both the cutting walls. As
reported in earlier investigation [7], the jet effective width is
responsible for the material removal on the wall and hence affects
the kerf taper. When the standoff distance is increased, the
material is exposed to the jet portion further downstream with a
reduced jet effective width. As a result, the corresponding kerf
width is reduced. By contrast, the top kerf width remains almost
unchanged within the small standoff distance, so that the kerf
taper is increased.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

1530 D.K. Shanmugam et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 48 (2008) 1527–1534

10 10 10
P= 410MPa compensated wall α=2°
Sd=2mm
the other wall P=410MPa
8 u=0.67mm/s Sd=4mm
ma=7.6g/s 8 8
ma=9g/s

Kerf taper angle (deg)

Kerf taper angle (deg)

Kerf taper angle (deg)

6
6 6
compensated wall
4 the other wall

4 4
2 α=1°
Sd=3mm
u=1.17mm/s
2 ma=7.6g/s 2 compensated wall
0
the other wall

-2 0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 300 340 380 420 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Kerf-taper compensation angle (deg) Water pressure (MPa) Traverse speed (mm/s)

10 10

8 8
α=4°
Kerf taper angle (deg)

Kerf taper angle (deg)

compensated wall P=340MPa

the other wall u=1.00mm/s
6 6
Sd=5mm
α=3°
P=310MPa compensated wall
4 u=1.17mm/s 4 the other wall
ma=9g/s

2 2

0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5
Standoff distance (mm) Abrasive mass flow rate (g/s)

Fig. 3. The effect of process parameters on the kerf taper angle.

It can be noticed from Fig. 3(e) that an increase in the abrasive kerf taper angle of 4.061 was achieved. By contrast, when using a
mass flow rate decreases the kerf taper angle. This may be kerf-taper compensation angle of 41 and a higher nozzle traverse
anticipated as more particles enable to remove more materials speed at 1.17 mm/s with the same water pressure, abrasive mass
and produce a smaller kerf taper. However, an increase in flow rate and standoff distance as those used in the above
the abrasive mass flow rate is associated with an increase in the normally cutting, a kerf taper angle of 1.321 has been achieved. In
process costs. If it is for the purpose of reducing kerf taper, the order to estimate this kerf geometrical feature on a mathematical
kerf-taper compensation technique, rather than an increased basis and for eventual application in process planning and
abrasive mass flow rate, can be used to reduce the production optimisation, a predictive model for the kerf taper is developed
costs. below.
The above analysis has shown that the kerf-taper compensa-
tion angle is the most influential parameter to kerf taper and can
significantly affect this kerf geometrical feature. The effect of 4. Predictive kerf taper model
traverse speed and water pressure is also markedly high, while the
effect of standoff distance and abrasive mass flow rate is relatively 4.1. Governing parameters
small. The study has also shown that the use of the kerf-taper
compensation technique allows the use of higher nozzle traverse To construct a model, it is essential to determine the governing
speed and lower abrasive mass flow rate for higher productivity parameters that affect the AWJ process. Based on previous
and lower costs. For example, when using a normal cutting with investigations [14,20,21], it may be considered that the kerf taper
water pressure of 410 MPa, nozzle traverse speed of 0.67 mm/s, angle on a given material is affected by jet kinetic energy, jet-work
abrasive mass flow rate of 8.3 g/s and standoff distance of 2 mm, a interaction time and the physical properties of abrasive particles.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

D.K. Shanmugam et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 48 (2008) 1527–1534 1531

4.1.1. Jet kinetic energy 4.1.3. Properties of abrasive particles

Jet kinetic energy and its variation along and across the jet is It has been reported [23] that the material removal by the impacts
an important factor in affecting the jet effective width within of solid particles is related to the particle density, rp, and dimension.
which the particles have sufficient energy for material removal. It In this study, the particles are considered to be in spherical shape and
therefore determines the kerf geometry on the work material, as so average particle diameter, dp, is employed. The accumulated effect
shown in Fig. 1. As the kinetic energy of the water within an AWJ is of individual particles on the material removal has been considered
believed to make no contributions to the removal of hard by including the abrasive mass flow rate, ma.
materials like alumina ceramics, only the particle kinetic energy
is considered. The rate of particle kinetic energy inside an AWJ is 4.1.4. Material properties
given by To correctly form the model, it is essential to identify the
influential and representative material properties for considera-
dKE 1
¼ ma V 2 , (1) tion in the model. Typically, alumina ceramics have much
dt 2
higher resistance to plastic deformation than most metals due
where ma is the abrasive mass flow rate and V is the particle to the very high stresses needed for crystal dislocations. However,
velocity. In an AWJ, abrasive particles are entrained by the water in the event of high velocity impact, the localised stresses at the
to increase their velocity. If assuming that the particle has gained impact site are so high that even an alumina ceramic can exhibit
the same velocity as its surrounding water at the point of particle some degree of plasticity [24]. As a result, it is appropriate to
impingement on the target material, the particle velocity can be account both brittle fracture and plastic deformation in a mixed
obtained using the following momentum transfer equation: mode when considering material erosion under the impacts of
  ultrahigh velocity particles. According to Hutchings [23], the
mw
V ¼ c1 V j, (2) brittle nature of erosion can be characterised by considering the
mw þ ma
fracture toughness, KIc, and the knoop hardness, Hd. To consider
where c1 is the momentum transfer efficiency, Vj is the waterjet the plastic deformation or ductile nature of erosion, Zeng and Kim
velocity, mw is the water mass flow rate and ma is the abrasive [24] introduced the material flow stress, sf, in their modelling
mass flow rate. work. Material flow stress is therefore used in this study.
The waterjet velocity from the orifice can be found by the
Bernoulli’s equation, i.e. 4.2. Model formulation
 1=2
2P
V j ¼ c2 , (3) As shown in the foregoing analysis, the development of the
rw
kerf taper model for AWJ cutting involves many variables. In
where c2 is the discharge coefficient, P is the water pressure and addition, other phenomena such as particle interference and
rw is the water density. particle fragmentation which may influence the kerf taper
Substituting Eq. (3) into Eq. (2) gives the particle velocity in formation are not well understood and cannot be mathematically
relation to water pressure as represented [25,26]. As a result, at this stage of development,
  1=2 purely theoretical modelling the kerf taper angle is too compli-
mw 2P cated and the resulting models with very low prediction accuracy
V ¼ c1 c2 . (4)
mw þ ma rw may be unrealistic for practical use [25]. By contrast, dimensional
analysis [14,27] offers a method for reducing complex physical
The inclusion of the mass ratio term in Eq. (4) complicates the
problems to a simpler form prior to obtaining a quantitative
development of the model. Therefore, to simplify the derivation,
answer. It is thus adopted in this study to develop mathematical
the mass ratio term may be approximated to a constant, Km [22]
model for the kerf taper angle.
and Eq. (4) can be re-written as
Based on the earlier analysis, kerf taper angle may be
 1=2 expressed as a function of the governing parameters as
2P
V ¼ c1 c2 K m . (5)
rw y ¼ f ðP; u; Sd ; ma ; a; dj ; dp ; rw ; rp ; K Ic ; Hd ; sf Þ. (7)
Substituting Eq. (5) into Eq. (1) yields the equation for the rate of In using the dimensional analysis technique, the variables in
kinetic energy as Eq. (7) can be assembled into a smaller number of independent
  dimensional groups using the Buckingham’s pi-theorem. The
dKE 2 2 P
¼ c1 c2 K 2m ma . (6) dimensional homogeneity requires that all the groups must have
dt rw
the same dimension. It has been found that there are three
The constants in Eq. (6) can be determined by experiments. From fundamental dimensions (length, mass and time) for all the 13
this equation, for a given particle mass it is reasonable to variables involved in Eq. (7). Accordingly, P, u and Sd that have
represent the effect of particle kinetic energy by water pressure, been found to significantly affect the kerf taper angle are chosen
P, water density, rw, and abrasive mass flow rate, ma. as three repeating variables for the dimensional analysis. Conse-
In addition, kerf geometry is related to the relative position of quently, 10 independent dimensionless pi-groups have been
the jet effective width with respect to the workpiece, as shown in formed for the 13 variables in Eq. (7), noting that y and a are
Fig. 1. Given the characteristics of a jet, this relative position may already dimensionless groups. These dimensionless pi-groups can
be considered to relate to the standoff distance, Sd, and the kerf- then be related by employing the widely used power-law
taper compensation angle, a. formulation [28], i.e.
! !h
m ua r u2 b r u2 c  d d d e H f s g K
p j p
4.1.2. Jet-work interaction time y ¼ k1 a w d f Ic
1=2
ai ,
P P P Sd Sd P P PS d
Jet-work interaction time can be taken approximately as the
ratio of the jet diameter at the work surface to the nozzle traverse (8)
speed, u. To simplify the analysis, the jet diameter at the work where k1, a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h and i are constants and can be
surface is assumed to be equal to the nozzle diameter, dj. determined from experiments. Eq. (8) may be considered as the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

1532 D.K. Shanmugam et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 48 (2008) 1527–1534

general model of kerf taper angle for AWJ cutting of alumina Rearranging Eq. (9) gives
ceramics. This model is now assessed when cutting an 87%
alumina ceramic material. u0:86 S0:47
d r0:22
w rp
0:39 0:13 0:12 0:33
Hd sf K Ic
y ¼ 0:12 0:43 0:21
, (10)
a0:94 P0:83 m0:36
a dj dp
4.3. Model assessment where Sd, dj and dp are in mm, ma is in g/s, Hd and sf are in MPa, KIc
is in MPa m1/2, P is in MPa, rw and rp are in kg/m3, u is in mm/s, y
Before assessing the model, the constants in the model need to and a are in degrees. Eqs. (9) and (10) are valid for cutting 87%
be determined by a cutting experiment for the chosen material. alumina ceramics in the range of conditions considered in this
For this purpose, the data obtained in the experimental part of study and when the compensation angle, a, is not equal to zero.
this investigation were used for a multi-variable regression The exponents in Eq. (10) determine the effect of the individual
analysis at a 95% confidence interval. As a result, the predictive parameters on the kerf taper angle. It can be seen that the kerf-
model for the kerf taper angle on the compensated wall when AWJ taper compensation angle is most influential with an exponent
cutting of the 87% alumina ceramics becomes value of 0.94. This value is close to unity, implying that the kerf
!0:39  taper angle is almost linearly proportional to the kerf-taper
m u0:36 r u2 0:22 r u2 dj
0:43
y ¼ 0:12 a w p compensation angle. The traverse speed having the exponent
P P P Sd value of 0.86 is found to be the next highly influential parameter,
 0:21  0:13  0:12 !0:33 followed by water pressure, standoff distance and abrasive mass
dp Hd sf K Ic
 1=2
a0:94 . (9) flow rate. It can also be observed that the kerf taper angle is
Sd P P PSd inversely proportional to kerf-taper compensation angle, water

7 7 7
P=380MPa P=310MPa u=0.67mm/s u=1.17mm/s P=310MPa P=410MPa

6 6 α=1° 6
Sd=3mm Sd=3mm α=2°
u=0.83mm/s ma=8.3g/s Sd=4mm
5 5 5
Kerf taper angle (deg)

Kerf taper angle (deg)

Kerf taper angle (deg)

ma=7.6g/s ma=9g/s

4 4 4

3 3 3

2 2 2

1 1 1

0 0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 300 340 380 420 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Kerf-taper compensation angle (deg) Water pressure (MPa) Traverse speed (mm/s)

7 7
ma=7.6g/s ma=9g/s Sd=2mm Sd=5mm

6 6
α=3° α=4°
P=310MPa P=340MPa
5 5
Kerf taper angle (deg)

Kerf taper angle (deg)

u=1.17mm/s u=1.00mm/s

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5
Standoff distance (mm) Abrasive mass flow rate (g/s)

Fig. 4. Comparison of predicted and experimental kerf taper angles on the compensated wall (symbols represent the experimental data and solid lines represent the
predicted values).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
D.K. Shanmugam et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 48 (2008) 1527–1534
pressure and abrasive mass flow rate, meaning that an increase in
any of the variables will decrease the kerf taper angle. By contrast,
kerf taper angle is directly proportional to the nozzle traverse
speed and standoff distance; an increase in any of these variables
will increase the kerf taper angle.
The generality and plausibility of the model for kerf taper angle
in AWJ straight cutting using the kerf-taper compensation
technique are examined by analysing the predicted trends with
respect to the process parameters, as shown in Fig. 4, where the
lines represent the predicted values and the symbols are for
experimental data. As shown in Fig. 4(a), the predicted kerf taper
angles on the compensated kerf wall decrease with an increase in
the kerf-taper compensation angle. This trend is attributed to the
change of the kerf orientation as a result of the compensation
angle used. The predicted relationship between water pressure
and kerf taper is shown in Fig. 4(b). It can be seen that the kerf
taper angle decreases with an increase in water pressure. From the
experimental data in this investigation, the top kerf width
remains relatively constant as the water pressure changes,
whereas the width at a lower part of the kerf increases steadily
with water pressure due to the increased effective jet diameter by
the increased water pressure. The combination of these effects
results in a decrease in the kerf taper angle as water pressure
increases.
The predicted kerf taper angle increases with an increase in
nozzle traverse speed, as shown in Fig. 4(c). A faster passage of the
AWJ allows fewer particles to strike on the target material, hence
decreasing the kerf width. However, as the jet loses its energy
when cutting into the workpiece, the kerf width at the lower part
of the cutting front decreases even more than the top kerf,
resulting in an increase in the kerf taper angles, as shown by the
experimental data in the figure. Fig. 4(d) shows that the kerf taper
angle increases with an increase in standoff distance. This is
consistent with the experimental data represented by the
symbols. This trend may be attributed to the fact that the jet
diameter increases as the jet flows away from the nozzle exit and
the effective jet diameter at the workpiece surface may also
increase as the standoff distance increases, opening a wider entry
slot. However, the effective jet diameter at the lower part of the
material is reduced because of the increase in standoff distance.
The combined effect results in an increase in the kerf taper angle.
The kerf tapers show a marginal decrease with an increase in
abrasive flow rate, as shown in Fig. 4(e). From the observed
qualitative trends, the model’s predictions are reasonable, in-
dicating that the developed model has been formulated correctly.
A quantitative comparison has been made and shows that the
model prediction yields an average percentage deviation of 6.2%
with the standard deviation of 13.4%. Thus, it may be stated that
the developed model can give adequate predictions for this
cutting performance measure for the conditions considered in this
study.
5. Conclusions
An experimental investigation to minimise the kerf taper angle
in AWJ cutting of alumina ceramics has been presented. Plausible
trends of the variation of kerf taper angle with respect to major
process parameters have been discussed. It has been shown that
the kerf-taper compensation angle is the most significant
parameter affecting the kerf taper. The kerf taper angle on the
compensated kerf wall decreases almost linearly with an increase
in the kerf-taper compensation angle, but increases on other kerf
wall. Similarly, an increase in water pressure and abrasive mass
flow rate results in a decrease in the kerf taper angle, while a
reverse trend applies for nozzle traverse speed and standoff
1533
distance. By properly selecting the kerf-taper compensation angle,
nozzle traverse speed can be increased to increase the cutting rate
and abrasive mass flow rate can be reduced to reduce the process
costs, while achieving small kerf taper angles. In order to
mathematically predict the kerf taper angle for process planning,
a general predictive model has been developed for AWJ cutting of
alumina ceramics using a dimensional analysis technique. The
model has been verified when cutting an 87% alumina ceramic
material with a fixed nozzle diameter and fixed abrasive particles.
It has been shown that the developed model can adequately
predict the kerf taper angle both qualitatively and quantitatively
within the tested range of the process parameters in this study,
with an average percentage deviation of 6.2% and the standard
deviation of 13.4% from the experimental data.
Acknowledgements
This project was financially supported by the Australian
Research Council (ARC). The authors would like to thank Mr. John
Barron and Mr. Seetha Mahadevan for their assistance in the
experimental work.
References
[1] M. Hashish, M. Hilleke, Waterjet machining of composites and ceramics, in: S.
Jahanmir, M. Ramulu, P. Koshy (Eds.), Machining of Ceramics and Composites,
Marcel Dekker, New York, 1999, pp. 427–482.
[2] E. Siores, W.C.K. Wong, L. Chen, J.G. Wager, Enhancing abrasive waterjet
cutting of ceramics by head oscillation techniques, Annals of CIRP 45 (1)
(1996) 215–218.
[3] J. Wang, T. Kuriyagawa, C.Z. Huang, An experimental study to enhance the
cutting performance in abrasive waterjet machining, Machining Science and
Technology 7 (2) (2003) 191–207.
[4] J. Wang, D.M. Guo, The cutting performance in multipass abrasive waterjet
machining of industrial ceramics, Journal of Material Processing Technology
133 (2003) 371–377.
[5] S. Xu, J. Wang, A study of abrasive waterjet cutting of alumina ceramics with
controlled nozzle oscillation, International Journal of Advanced Manufactur-
ing Technology 27 (2006) 693–702.
[6] J. Wang, Techniques for enhancing the cutting performance of abrasive
waterjets, Key Engineering Materials 257/258 (2004) 521–526.
[7] M. Hashish, M.P. Du Plessis, Prediction equations relating high velocity jet
cutting performance to standoff distance and multipasses, Journal of
Engineering for Industry 101 (1979) 311–318.
[8] H.-T. Liu, P. Miles, S.D. Veenhuizen, CFD and physical modelling of UHP AWJ
drilling, in: Proceeding of the 14th International Conference on Jetting
Technology, Brugge, Belgium, 1998, pp. 15–24.
[9] H. Liu, J. Wang, N. Kelson, R. Brown, A study of abrasive waterjet
characteristics by CFD simulation, Journal of Material Processing Technology
153/154 (2003) 488–493.
[10] T. Nguyen, D.K. Shanmugam, J. Wang, Effect of liquid properties on the
stability of an abrasive waterjet, International Journal of Machine Tools and
Manufacturing 48 (10) (2008) 1138–1147.
[11] A.W. Momber, L. Eusch, R. Kovacevic, Machining refractory ceramics with
abrasive waterjet, Journal of Material Science 31 (1996) 6485–6493.
[12] J. Wang, Abrasive waterjet machining of polymer matrix composites: cutting
performance erosive analysis and predictive models, International Journal of
Advanced Technology 15 (1999) 757–768.
[13] M. Hashish, Effect of beam angle in abrasive waterjet machining, Journal of
Engineering for Industry 115 (1993) 51–56.
[14] J. Wang, Predictive depth of jet penetration models for abrasive waterjet
cutting of alumina ceramics, International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 49
(2007) 306–316.
[15] E. Lemma, L. Chen, E. Siores, J. Wang, Optimising the AWJ cutting process of
ductile materials using nozzle oscillation technique, International Journal of
Machine Tools and Manufacture 42 (2002) 781–789.
[16] J. Wang, S. Xu, Enhancing the AWJ cutting performance by multipass
machining with controlled nozzle oscillation, Key Engineering Materials
291/292 (2005) 453–458.
[17] R.K. Roy, A Primer on the Taguchi Method, Society of Manufacturing
Engineers, Dearborn, USA, 1990.
[18] M. Hashish, Characteristics of surfaces machined with abrasive waterjets,
Transactions ASME Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology 113
(1991) 354–362.
[19] L. Chen, E. Siores, W.C.K. Wong, Kerf characteristics in abrasive waterjet
cutting of ceramic materials, International Journal of Machine Tools and
Manufacture 36 (11) (1996) 1201–1206.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1534 D.K. Shanmugam et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 48 (2008) 1527–1534
[20] J. Zeng, T.J. Kim, Development of abrasive waterjet kerf cutting model for
brittle materials, in: Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Jet
Cutting Technology, Dordrecht, 1992, pp. 483–501.
[21] H. Hocheng, K.R. Chang, Material removal analysis in abrasive waterjet
cutting of ceramic plates, Journal of Material Processing Technology 40 (1994)
287–304.
[22] M. Hashish, Precision cutting of thick materials with AWJ, in: Proceedings
of 17th International Conference on Waterjetting, Mainz, Germany, 2005,
pp. 33–45.
[23] I.M. Hutchings, Tribology: Friction and Wear of Engineering Materials,
Edward Arnold, London, 1992.
[24] J. Zeng, T.J. Kim, An erosion model of polycrystalline ceramics in abrasive
waterjet cutting, Wear 193 (1996) 207–217.
[25] J. Wang, Abrasive Waterjet Machining of Engineering Materials, Trans. Tech.
Pub., Uetikon-Zuerich, Switzerland, 2003.
[26] J. Wang, D.M. Guo, A predictive depth of penetration model for abrasive
waterjet cutting of polymer matrix composites, Journal of Material Processing
Technology 121 (2/3) (2002) 390–394.
[27] E. De St Q Isaacson, M. De St Q Isaacson, Dimensional Methods in Engineering
and Physics: Reference Sets and the Possibilities of Their Extension, Edward
Arnold, London, 1975.
[28] G.I. Barenblatt, Dimensional Analysis, Gordon & Breach, New York, 1987.