Influence of machining parameters on part geometrical error in abrasive waterjet offset-mode turning

Abstract

Geometrical error in abrasive waterjet turned parts is an important challenge towards the abrasive waterjet turning process commercialisation. A Systematic study has not been done yet to investigate the effects of process parameters on geometrical error in abrasive waterjet offset-mode turning. In this paper, a comprehensive study has been performed to investigate the influence of several machining parameters on the geometrical error (part diameter percent error) in turning AA2011-T4 aluminum alloy round bars. Water pressure, cutting head traverse speed, workpiece rotational speed, abrasive mass flow rate and depth of cut were considered as the main machining parameters in a five levels statistical experimental design. Basing on central composite rotatable design (CCRD), a total of 52 experiments was carried out. The main effects of the parameters and interactions among them were analyzed based on the analysis of variance (ANOVA) technique and the response contours for the part geometrical error were obtained using a quadratic regression model (i.e. RSM). The model predictions were found to be in good agreement with experimental data. Furthermore, among the significant parameters, pressure, depth of cut and traverse speed are the most influential parameters, with percent contribution of almost 25% each. Abrasive mass flow rate places as the least influential parameter with a percent contribution of 4%.

The use of high-frequency acoustic emission analysis for in-process assessment of the surface quality of aluminium alloy 5251 in abrasive waterjet machining

“…Indeed, numerous examples of such applications can be found in the literature. [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] Zohoor et al 22 used waterjet technology in turning process and analysed geometrical error in turned parts. Karakurt et al 23 studied the effects of the AWJ operating variables on the kerf angle and the material properties in machining of rocks.…”

Experimental study of coverage constraint abrasive flow machining of titanium alloy artificial joint surface

“…30 The inlet velocity directly affects the distribution of the turbulent flow energy, velocity, and dynamic pressure of the abrasive flow on the workpiece surface, which would affect the machining effect. 31 Compared with the conventional abrasive flow machining, the soft abrasive flow has a lower viscosity, and the tendency of the abrasive particles to roll back in the flow channel is greater. Therefore, the processing temperature and inlet velocity could be further studied and expanded to improve the applicability of the prediction model.…”

Effect of rotation direction, traverse speed, and abrasive type during the hydroabrasive disintegration of a rotating Ti6Al4V workpiece

“…Using a suitable abrasive during disintegration can be advantageous when processing a specific material, from a technological and economic point of view. Selecting a 13 Olivine Glass Surface roughness, Surface waviness p, v, z", Ra, Wa # n, m a ", Ra, Wa# Kartal et al 14 Barton Garnet Aluminium 6082 T6 Surface roughness n, m a ", Ra# v, z", Ra" Cárach et al 15 Barton Garnet Monel K500 Surface roughness, MRR v", Ra" n, m a ", Ra# v ", MRR %# m a ", MRR %" Kartal et al 16 Barton Garnet Low-density polyethene Optimisation of surface roughness and waviness n, m a ", Ra # v", Ra" n, m a ", MRR" v", MRR# Srivastava et al 17 Australian 18 Barton Garnet AlSi17Cu4Mg Comparison of AWJT with conventional turning n", Ra# Zohoor et al 19 Australian Garnet Aluminium alloy AA2011-T4 Geometrical accuracy a p , p", GE% # v, m a #, GE% # a p , m a #, GE% # p, m a ", GE% # a p #, v", GE% # suitable abrasive type for a targeted material (particularly in the case of special materials) would bring economic advantages, as well as quantitative and qualitative benefits. 21 Moreover, the workpiece rotation direction influences the material removal process.…”