Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 13438–13450 www.materialstoday.com/proceedings

ICMMM - 2017

Effect of Abrasive Waterjet Machining Parameters on Hybrid

AA6061-B4C- CNT Composites
A.Gnanavelbabua*, P.Saravananb, K.Rajkumarc, S.Karthikeyand, R.Baskarane
a,e
Associate Professor, Department of Industrial Engineering, Anna University Chennai-600025, Tamilnadu, India
b
Research Scholar, Department of Industrial Engineering, Anna University Chennai-600025, Tamilnadu, India
c
Associate Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, SSN College of Engineering, Kalavakkam-603110,Tamilnadu, India
d
Professor, Centre for Innovative Manufacturing Research, VIT University, Vellore-632014, Tamilnadu, India

Abstract

In general, Metal Matrix Composites (MMC)are very hard to machine using conventional machining due to complexity towards
elevated temperature and tool wear issues. Abrasive water jet machining is a very efficient machining process which overcomes
tool wear issues and cutting temperature issues. In this research study,AA6061-B4C- CNT was machined using Abrasive
Waterjet Machining under different process parameters such as mesh size, abrasive flow rate, pressure and traverse speed. Boron
carbide was used as reinforcement and Carbon Nanotube (CNT) was used as a solid lubricant. Two different composition of
boron carbide (5, 15 vol %) and CNT (5, 15vol %) with residual volume percentage of aluminium as a core material were
fabricated using stir casting method. The Machining approach is based on the Taguchi L9 orthogonal array design to enhance the
Abrasive waterjet process parameters effectively. Then the multiple responses were investigated such as kerf taper geometries
(θ), surface roughness (Ra) and material removal rate (MRR). The features of different machined surface regions were studied
using Scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The investigational results indicate that increasing reinforcement improves the kerf
taper angle under the significant parameter of traverse speed and decreasing the reinforcement leads to the lower surface
roughness under significant parameter of pressure and traverse speed. It was observed that increasing reinforcement increasing
the Material Removal Rate under the significant contribution of reducing mesh size of abrasive particles and inclined velocity.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and/or Peer-review under responsibility of International Conference on Materials Manufacturing and Modelling (ICMMM - 2017).

Keywords:AWJM, Metal Matrix Composite, Aluminium, Boron Carbide, Carbon Nanotubes, Kerf, Surface roughness, MRR

1. Introduction

Materials with unique metallurgical properties such as Metal Matrix Composites other super alloys were
developed to produce extreme applications. Aluminium based MMC face machining difficulties while subjected to
elevated cutting temperature and tool wear issues [1]. Researchers are showed much interest in

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +91-9551133779;
E-mail address: agbabu@annauniv.edu

2214-7853© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Selection and/or Peer-review under responsibility of International Conference on Materials Manufacturing and Modelling (ICMMM - 2017).
 A.Gnanavelbabu et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 13438–13450 13439

employingAluminium Metal Matrix Composites (AMMC) in the field of aerospace, automotive and defense[2]. It
exhibits superior properties that may not be found in the alloys. Moreover an addition of hard reinforcement to the
composites leads to enhanced strength which results in difficult to machining[3]. Due to its enhanced material
strength, it needs an unconventional machining process like EDM, ECM, EBM and LBM. EDM lacks with surface
integrity such as quality and poor finish due to thermal cracking. Employing an ECM is easily but produced oxide
layer on the surface as a result of corrosion which affects accuracy [4]. Another thermal process like LBM is based
on the non-contact type machining method with better flexibility but producesmicro fissures on the cut surface [5].
Similarly high energy process such as EBM is also associated with thermal phenomena as like LBM and expensive
[6]. The suitable machining process for MMC was found to be Abrasive water jet machining because of less thermal
distortion and minimal induced stresses in the machined surface. Abrasive waterjet machining is an economical
process to machining hard complex shapes using smaller cutting forces [7-9].
Boron carbide is discoveredas popular reinforcement particles for the metal matrix composites. In further, adding
of solid lubricant like CNT provides an excellent strengthening effect to the metal. Hence this strong combination of
reinforcement and solid lubricantprovides a better structural and strength physiognomies to the metal matrix as
required for the advanced engineering applications. In general,Aluminium reinforced with boron carbide composite
shows relatively enhanced physical and mechanical properties like strength to weight ratio, low wear rate and
nominal friction coefficient than other reinforcement with aluminium matrix [10]. Solid lubricants like hBN acts a
coolant while machining at elevated temperature and saved the material from rapid tool wear [11]. Hence abrasive
water jet machining is more appropriate to machine the Al6061-B4C-CNT composite.
The water carrying the garnet abrasive particles acts as a coolant in abrasive waterjet technology in order to
eliminate heat issues. High energy of water jet and abrasive particles plays a key role in machining process. The
machining performance ofAWJ machining mainly depends on the abrasive particle’s traverse speed and jet impact
angles. A small cutting force is enough for material processing with huge advantages like nil thermal distortion and
better adaptability [12, 13]. The quality of cutting evaluation is based on the surface roughness, waviness, angle of
striations and MRR. The ultimate motto is to obtain smooth surface of cut region. Those better machining surface
can be achieved by changing process parameters like abrasive flow rate, mesh size, pressure, traverse speed and
standoff distance effectively [14-17].
In AWJ technology erosion process takes place in high speed. Hitting of Abrasive particles with high traverse
speed and high impact angle leads to erosion of the machining surface. There are two modes of erosion takes place
by abrasive particles in AWJ machining processes. Larger particle impact angle causes deformation wear mode and
smaller particle impact angle causes cutting wear mode.[18].
Abrasive water jet machining uses different process parameters like mesh size, abrasive flow rate, pressure of
water and traverse speed. The cumulative effects of these variables on the machining surface can efficientlymodifies
the kerf width to be cut, material removal rate (MRR), and surface roughness of cut surface. It is claimed that
increase in water pressure and abrasive flow rate increases the surface roughness considerably[19] and increase in
traverse speed decreases surface roughness and increasesMRR [20]. Multifaceted of input variables in AJWM
machining lead to complexity in selection of processes parameters. Taguchi based L9 orthogonal array is
implemented in machining of Al-B4C-CNT. Then the experimental result was analyzed through ANOVAwhich
produces the optimal significant parameter and its contribution towards the each response.
Most of literatures were targeted in the area of AWJM of brittle materials. There arevery less number of research
work has been reported particularly for Abrasive watejet machining on metal matrix hybrid reinforced composites.
This research work demonstrates the effects of AWJM machining of Al-B4C-CNT parameters and its influences on
kerf geometry (θ), surface roughness (Ra) and MRR.

2. Experimental Procedure

In this work, Al6061-B4C-CNT of two different compositions was machined usingabrasive water jet machining.
Aluminiummetal matrix composites were fabricated with the composition of boron carbide (5, 15vol %) and CNT
(5, 15vol %). It is denoted as Composition A (5% boron carbide-5%CNT) and Composition B (15% boron carbide-
15%CNT) respectively in this paper. Stir casting technique is employed for the fabrication of Composites. T6 heat
13440 A.Gnanavelbabu et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 13438–13450

treatment was carried out to enhance the mechanical properties of Aluminium based metal matrix composites. The
machining experiments were carried out using abrasive water jet machine manufactured by OMAX Corporation
which is shown in figure 1. Taguchi based L9 orthogonal array was used to implement different process parameters
on AWJ machining. Table.1 shows the process parameters and its values used in the machining process.

Table 1. Parameters and factors

Oriface Diameter 0.25 mm

Nozzle diameter 0.75 mm

Focusing tube length 75mm

Focusing tube Diameter 1mm

Impact angle 90°

Abrasive Type Garnet

Abrasive mesh size 80,100,120 #

Abrasive flow rate 240,340,440 g/min

Pump Pressure 125,200,275 MPa

Traverse Speed 60,90,120 mm/min

Standoff Distance 1.5 mm

Fig. 1 Precision Abrasive Waterjet Machining Center manufactured by OMAX Corporation (Model: 2626)
 A.Gnanavelbabu et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 13438–13450 13441

3. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

3.1. Composition A

By using Taguchi L9 orthogonal method with different process parameters, nine cuts were machined in the
Composition A (5% boron carbide-5%CNT) under the suitable environmental condition which is shown in table 2.

Table 2 Measurement of Kerf taper angle, Surface roughness and MRR

Mesh Abrasive Flow Kerf Taper MRR

Pressure Traverse Speed Ѳ Roughness
Size Rate mm3/min
Sl.No (MPa) (mm/min) (Degrees) Ra
(#) (g/min)
1 120 240 275 90 0.265 11.1 3.666
2 120 340 125 120 0.288 13.51 3.176
3 120 440 200 60 0.146 7.362 3.871
4 100 440 125 90 0.181 10.29 3.862
5 100 340 275 60 0.149 7.749 4.077
6 100 240 200 120 0.281 13.48 3.127
7 80 240 125 60 0.141 7.146 4.522
8 80 340 200 90 0.272 11.25 3.276
9 80 440 275 120 0.301 14.99 3.012

After the machining, cut surfaces were examined using Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) for microstructural
analysis and Kerf width were measured using Video measurement system for kerf taper angle. Later surface
roughness was measured using portable stylus-type contact roughness meter. MRR was calculated using the Kerf
width, traverse speed and depth of penetration. The calculation of kerf taper, MRR and surface roughness was
shown in above table 2. Response surface methodology approach is the technique for describing the correlation
between different process parameters with various cutting conditions and determining the various effects of the
process parameters on the mutual responses [21].

3.1.1. Kerf Geometry for Composition A

Rational Video Measurement system 2010-F was used to measure kerf geometry. Typical view of kerf width is
shown in figure 2. The kerf top and kerfbottom of each cut was measured to calculate the kerf taper angle.

(1)

Where t is the width or thickness of the material

t = 5 mm; Wt is the Kerf Top; Wb is the Kerf Bottom

Fig. 2 Typical view of Lowest Kerf Width of Composition A

13442 A.Gnanavelbabu et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 13438–13450

The Top kerf is obviously wider than bottom kerf due to increase in pressure, which is a vital factor in Abrasive
water jet machining. Due to the pressure factor, Kerf taper is produced. The largest kerf taper angle ratio affects the
straightness of cutting and its results in poor dimensional quality. It is evident that low water pressure (125MPa) and
low traverse speed (60 mm/min) were produced the minimum kerf taper angle of θ = 0.141 which is shown in figure
3. When traverse speed increases, it will increase the slope of kerf wall due to abrasives strike on target which
produces narrower slot. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the results of Kerf taper angle which is
shown in table 3.
Table 3 ANOVA for Kerf Taper Angle

S.No Source Sum of Mean F Value P- Value

Squares df Square Prob > F
1 Model 0.034 4 0.034 8.79 0.0455
2 A-Mesh Size 3.750E-005 1 3.750E-005 0.065 0.8021
3 B-Abrasive Flow rate 5.802E-004 1 5.802E-004 3.14 0.0983
4 C-Pressure 0.031 1 0.031 9.14 0.0091
5 D-Traverse rate 3.851E-003 1 3.851E-003 8.69 0.0106

The Model F-value of 8.79 implies the model is significant. Values of "Prob> F" less than 0.04500 indicates that
model terms are significantly contributed. In this case, C-Pressure is significant model terms.

Fig. 3 3D Surface of Kerf Taper angle for Composition A

3.1.2. Surface Roughnessfor Composition A

Portable stylus-type contact roughness meter was used for the measurement of roughness. The profilometer was
calibrated with traverse speed 1mm/sec, cutoff length of 0.8 mm, and 3 mm estimate length. Measurements of
roughness are taken in the transverse direction of the work pieces and it is repeated twice, and the average of two
measurements of surface roughness was calculated. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the results
of Surface roughness which is shown in table 4.The Regression model for Surface roughness in figure 4 shows the
response surface graphs which are plotted to achieve minimum surface roughness with different combinations of
AWJM process parameter during machining of Composition A. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze
the results of Surface roughness which is shown in table 4.
 A.Gnanavelbabu et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 13438–13450 13443

Table 4 ANOVA for Surface Roughness

S.No Source Sum of df Mean F p-value
Squares Square Value Prob > F

1 Model 1.82 4 0.46 7.25 0.0406

2 A-Mesh Size 1.568E-003 1 1.568E-003 0.25 0.8822
3 B-Abrasive Flow rate 0.054 1 0.054 0.86 0.4060

4 C-Pressure 0.011 1 0.011 1.72 0.2602

5 D-Traverse rate 1.66 1 1.66 26.38 <0.001

The Model F-value of 7.25 implies the model is significant. Values of "Prob> F" less than 0.001 indicates that
model terms are significantly contributed. In this case, D-Traverse speed is significant model terms. Values greater
than 0.1000 indicate the model terms are not significant. It is evident that high traverse speed (120 mm/min) and
highwater pressure (275 MPa) were produced the surface roughness of Ra = 3.012 which is shown in figure 5.
.

Fig. 4 3D Surface of Surface Roughness for Composition A

3.1.3. Material Removal Rate for Composition A

Material removal rate (MRR) was calculated using Kerf width, traverse speed and depth of penetration. Moreover
standoff distance plays a major role in material removal rate (MRR). Material removal rate increases with standoff
distance, because of penetration depth creating craters in working surface. Material removal was calculated using
following formula,
Material Removal Rate (MRR) = ht.W.Vt(2)
W= Kerf Width = (Wt + Wb)/2
Wt is the Kerf Top; Wb is the Kerf Bottom
Vt= Traverse rate (m/min); ht= Depth of Penetration (ht=5mm)
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the results of Material removal rate which is shown in table 5.
13444 A.Gnanavelbabu et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 13438–13450

Table 5 ANOVA for MRR

S.No Source Sum of df Mean F p-value

Squares Square Value Prob > F

1 Model 66.76 4 16.69 162.70 0.0512

2 A-Mesh Size 0.34 1 0.34 3.27 0.0150
3 B-Abrasive Flow rate 0.14 1 0.14 1.37 0.3669
4 C-Pressure 1.39 1 1.39 13.55 0.0212
5 D-Traverse rate 64.89 1 64.89 362.59 < 0.0001

The Model F-value of 162.50 implies the model is significant. Values of "Prob> F" less than 0.0500 indicates
that model terms are significantly contributed. In this case, A-Mesh size, C- pressure and D-Traverse speed are
significant model terms. It is evident that low mesh size (80#), high traverse speed (120 mm/min) and highwater
pressure (275 MPa) were produced the maximum material removal rate of 14.99mm3/min which is shown in
figure5.

Fig. 5 3D Surface of Material Removal Rate for Composition A

3.1.4. Surface Topographyfor Composition A

The machined surface of samples having higher roughness and lower roughness under 200µm in SEM was
shown in figure 6 and figure 7. There are two distinct zones were found as: Smooth machining region (SMR) which
is present in lower roughness sample and Rough machining region (RMR) which is present in higher roughness
sample. Smooth machining region was obtained at higher cutting angle zone and whereas rough machining region
was obtained at reversal jet deflection. The width of the smooth cut region increases with increase in traverse rate,
because of higher depth of cut. The cutting wear and deformation wear found as a patchy scar in rough cutting
region due to high pressure and low traverse speed.
 A.Gnanavelbabu et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 13438–13450 13445

Fig. 6 Cut Surface of higher Roughness Fig. 7 Cut Surface of lower Roughness

3.2. Composition B

By using Taguchi L9 orthogonal method with different process parameters, nine cuts were machinedin
CompositionB (15% boron carbide- 15%CNT) under suitable environmental condition which is shown in table 6.
Table 6 Measurement of Kerf taper angle, Surface roughness and MRR of Composition B

Mesh Abrasive Flow Kerf Taper MRR

Pressure Traverse Speed Ѳ Roughness
Size Rate mm3/min
Sl.No (MPa) (mm/min) (Degrees) Ra
(#) (g/min)
1 120 240 275 90 0.168 11.42 3.544
2 120 340 125 120 0.243 14.78 3.125
3 120 440 200 60 0.078 8.104 3.718
4 100 440 125 90 0.158 11.46 3.745
5 100 340 275 60 0.065 8.257 3.92
6 100 240 200 120 0.256 15.23 3.352
7 80 240 125 60 0.075 7.704 4.225
8 80 340 200 90 0.172 11.65 3.484
9 80 440 275 120 0.275 16.26 3.255

3.2.1. Kerf Geometry for Composition B

The Kerf geometry was measured using Rational VMS 2010-F which is shown in figure 8. The top kerf and
bottom kerf of each cut was measured to calculate the kerf taper angle for each cut.

(3)

Where t is the width or thickness of the material

t = 5 mm
Wt is the KerfTop
Wb is the KerfBottom
13446 A.Gnanavelbabu et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 13438–13450

Fig. 8 Typical view of Lowest Kerf Width for Composition B

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the results of Kerf taper angle which is shown in table 7.
Table 7 ANOVA for Kerf Taper Angle

S.No Source Sum of Mean F Value P- Value

Squares df Square Prob > F
1 Model 0.052 4 0.013 542.83 <0.0001
2 A-Mesh Size 8.817E-005 1 8.817E-005 3.67 0.1278
3 B-Abrasive Flow rate 8.007E-005 1 8.007E-005 3.36 0.1408
4 C-Pressure 4.507E-004 1 4.507E-004 18.77 0.0123
5 D-Traverse rate 0.052 1 0.052 2145.54 <0.0001

In this case, D-Traverse speed is significant model terms.It is evident that high water pressure (275MPa) and low
traverse speed (60 mm/min) were produced the minimum kerf taper angle of θ = 0.065 which is shown in figure 10.
Adding the volume fraction of reinforcement and solid lubricant required the water pressure parameter higher to get
a minimized kerf taper angle when compared to composition A with less volume fraction of reinforcement and solid
lubricant.

Fig. 9 3D Surface of Kerf Taper angle for Composition B

 A.Gnanavelbabu et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 13438–13450 13447

3.2.2. Surface Roughness for Composition B

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the results of Surface roughness for composition B which is
shown in table 8.
Table 8 ANOVA for Surface Roughness
S.No Source Sum of df Mean F p-value
Squares Square Value Prob > F

1 Model 0.86 4 0.227 9.85 0.0239

2 A-Mesh Size 0.052 1 0.052 2.53 0.1867
3 B-Abrasive Flow rate 0.027 1 0.027 1.24 0.3286
4 C-Pressure 0.024 1 0.024 1.08 0.3583
5 D-Traverse rate 0.76 1 0.76 34.55 0.0042

In this case, D-Traverse speed is significant model terms. It is evident that high traverse speed (120 mm/min) and
lowwater pressure (125 MPa) were produced the surface roughness of Ra = 3.125 which is shown in figure 10. The
material added with volume fraction of reinforcement required lower pressure to produce a minimum roughness.

Fig. 10 3D Surface of Surface Roughness for Composition B

3.2.3. Material Removal Rate for Composition B

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the results of Material removal rate for composition B which
is shown in table 9.
Table 9 ANOVA for MRR

Sum of Mean F p-value

S.No Source df
Squares Square Value Prob > F

1 Model 83.56 4 20.89 658.61 <0.0001

2 A-Mesh Size 0.29 1 0.29 9.02 0.0398
3 B-Abrasive Flow rate 0.36 1 0.36 11.36 0.0280
4 C-Pressure 0.66 1 0.66 20.67 0.0104
5 D-Traverse rate 82.25 1 82.25 2581.38 < 0.0001
13448 A.Gnanavelbabu et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 13438–13450

In this case, D-Traverse speed is significant model terms. It is evident that low mesh size (80#), high traverse
speed (120 mm/min) and high water pressure (275 MPa) were produced the maximum material removal rate of
16.26 mm3/min which is shown in figure 11.

Fig. 11 3D Surface of Material Removal Rate for Composition A

3.2.4. Surface Topographyfor Composition B

The machined surface of samples having lower roughness and higher roughness under 200µm in SEM was
shown in figure 12 and figure 13. In this SEM image, particulates are visible and patchy. The lower roughness leads
to the smoothness of cut by the significant process parameter of traverse speed. Traverse speed and plays a
significant role in contributing towards roughness of the material.

Fig. 12 Cut Surface of Lower Roughness Fig.13Cut Surface of higher Roughness

 A.Gnanavelbabu et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 13438–13450 13449

4. Conclusions

In this research, Kerf taper angle, surface roughness (Ra), topographical analysis and Material Removal Rate (MRR)
of Al-B4C-CNT Composite were investigated using Abrasive water jet machining. By the summarized results from
above responses, the following conclusions was made and recommended.
1. For Composition A, low water pressure (125 MPa) and low traverse speed (60 mm/min) were produced the
minimum kerf taper angle of θ = 0.141. For Composition B, high water pressure (275 MPa) and low traverse
speed (60 mm/min) were produced the minimum kerf taper angle of θ = 0.065. It is conclusive that increasing
reinforcement improves the kerf taper angle with significant parameter of traverse speed.
2. For Composition A, high traverse speed (120 mm/min) and high water pressure (275 MPa) were produced the
surface roughness of Ra = 3.012. For Composition B, high traverse speed (120 mm/min) and low water pressure
(125 MPa) were produced the surface roughness of Ra = 3.125. It is evident that decreasing the reinforcement
leads to the lower surface roughness.
3. For Composition A, low mesh size (80#), high traverse speed (120 mm/min) and high water pressure (275 MPa)
were produced the maximum material removal rate of 14.99 mm3/min. For Composition B, low mesh size (80#),
high traverse speed (120 mm/min) and high water pressure (275 MPa) were produced the maximum material
removal rate of 16.26 mm3/min. It is obvious that increasing reinforcement increasing the Material Removal
Rate with significant contribution of reducing mesh size of abrasive particles.
4. Microstructural analyses of machined surfaces revealed that Smooth Cutting Region was found at less reinforced
composite and Rough Cutting Region. Smooth Cutting region (SCR) was found at higher reinforced composite.

References

[1] Arola, D., Alade, A. E., & Weber, W. (2006). Improving fatigue strength of metals using abrasive waterjet peening. Machining science and
technology, Vol.10, No.2, pp.197-218.
[2] Kaczmar, J. W., Pietrzak, K., &Włosiński, W. (2000). The production and application of metal matrix composite materials. Journal of
Materials Processing Technology, Vol.106, No.1, pp. 58-67.
[3] Sankar, M., Gnanavelbabu, A., &Rajkumar, K. (2014). Effect of reinforcement particles on the abrasive assisted electrochemical machining of
Aluminium-Boron carbide-Graphite composite. Procedia Engineering, Vol.97, pp.381-389.
[4] De Silva, A. K. M., Pajak, P. T., McGeough, J. A., & Harrison, D. K. (2011). Thermal effects in laser assisted jet electrochemical machining.
CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology, Vol.60, No.1, pp. 243-246.
[5] Dubey, A. K., &Yadava, V. (2008). Laser beam machining—a review. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, Vol. 48,
No.6, pp. 609-628.
[6] Murr, L. E., Quinones, S. A., Gaytan, S. M., Lopez, M. I., Rodela, A., Martinez, E. Y., ... & Wicker, R. B. (2009). Microstructure and
mechanical behavior of Ti–6Al–4V produced by rapid-layer manufacturing, for biomedical applications. Journal of the mechanical behavior of
biomedical materials, Vol.2, No.1, pp.20-32.
[7] Mdebasishghosh, probal k. Das,and Badoglio (2014) “Parametric studies of abrasive water jet cutting on surface roughness of silicon nitride
materials”, 5th International & 26th All India Manufacturing Technology, Design and Research Conference (AIMTDR 2014), December 12th
–14th , 2014, IIT.
[8] Van Luttervelt. C. A (1989) "On the selection of manufacturing methods illustrated by an overview of separation techniques for sheet
materials", CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology, Vol.38, No.2, pp. 587-607,
[9] Akkurt, and Adnan (2004) "Effect of feed rate on surface roughness in abrasive water jet cutting applications", Journal of Materials Processing
Technology, Vol.147, No.3,pp. 389-396
[10] Muthazhagan, C., Gnanavelbabu, A., Bhaskar, G. B., &Rajkumar, K. (2014). Influence of Graphite Reinforcement on Mechanical Properties
of Aluminum-Boron Carbide Composites. In Advanced Materials Research , Trans Tech Publications, Vol. 845, pp. 398-402.
[11] Santosh, S., Rajkumar, K., &Gnanavelbabu, A. (2015). Effect of hBN solid lubricant concentration on machinability of titanium (Ti-6Al-4V)
alloy. In Materials Science Forum , Trans Tech Publications, Vol. 830, pp. 87-90.
[12] Hascalik, A., Çaydaş, U., &Gürün, H. (2007). Effect of traverse speed on abrasive waterjet machining of Ti–6Al–4V alloy. Materials &
Design, Vol.28, No.6, pp.1953-1957.
[13] Çaydaş, U., &Hasçalık, A. (2008). A study on surface roughness in abrasive waterjet machining process using artificial neural networks and
regression analysis method. Journal of materials processing technology, Vol.202, No.1, pp. 574-582.
[14] Hashish, Mohamed. (1984)"A modeling study of metal cutting with abrasive waterjets." Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology,
Vol. 106, No.1: pp.88-100.
[15] Hashish, Mohamed. (1991)"Optimization factors in abrasive-waterjet machining." Journal of Engineering for industry, Vol.113, No.1: pp.29-
37.
 13450 A.Gnanavelbabu et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 13438–13450

[16] Arola, Dwayne, and MamidalaRamulu. (1993) "Mechanism of material removal in abrasive waterjet machining of common aerospace
materials." Proceedings of the 7th American Water Jet Conference..
[17] Blickwedel, H., (1990) "Prediction of abrasive jet cutting performance and quality." Proceedings of 9th International Symposium on Jet
Cutting Technology.
[18] Sasikumar, K. S. K., Arulshri, K. P., Ponappa, K., &Uthayakumar, M. (2016). A study on kerf characteristics of hybrid aluminium 7075 metal
matrix composites machined using abrasive water jet machining technology. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B:
Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 0954405416654085.
[19] Khan, Ahsan Ali, MohdEfendee Bin Awang, and Ahmad Azwari Bin Annuar.(2005) "Surface roughness of carbides produced by abrasive
water jet machining." Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol. 5, No.10, pp.1757-1761.
[20] Palleda, Mahabalesh. (2007) "A study of taper angles and material removal rates of drilled holes in the abrasive water jet machining process."
Journal of materials processing technology, Vol.189, No.1. pp.292-295.
[21] Sankar, M., Gnanavelbabu, A., Rajkumar, K., &Mariyappan, M. (2016). Electro Chemical Machining of Aluminum-Boron Carbide-
Nanographite Composites. In Applied Mechanics and Materials, Trans Tech Publications, Vol. 852, pp. 136-141.