Optimisation of Process Parameters for Abrasive Water Jet Machining of

Kevlar-Epoxy Composites Using Taguchi Method

Tauseef Uddin Siddiqui 1, Pankaj B. Tambe 2, Mukul Shukla 3

1. Research Scholar, Mechanical Engineering Department, MNNIT, Allahabad
2. Research Scholar, Metallurgical Engineering and Materials Science Department, IIT, Bombay
3. Assistant Professor, Mechanical Engineering Department, MNNIT, Allahabad
Email - tauseefus@gmail.com, pbtambe@rediffmail.com, mukulshukla@mnnit.ac.in
Phone-91-94104059801, 91-9415307960 3
Fax-0532-2441501, 077
Abstract:
Abrasive water jets are specially used for cutting of difficult-to-cut materials like
composites, super alloys and ceramics due to their poor surface finish and partially pulled-out and
crushed fibres. That’s why, optimization of experiments is a major issue in the Abrasive water jet
machining (AWJM) of polymer composites. This paper presents a study of the influence of three
process parameters (water jet pressure, abrasive flow rate and quality level) on surface roughness
in AWJM of kevlar-epoxy composites. The optimal setting of cutting parameters is determined
through experiments and analyzed using the Taguchi method. The experimental results and
analysis of signal to noise ratio (S/N ratio) indicates that quality level and water jet pressure have
more significant effect on surface roughness. Confirmation experiments were also conducted to
verify the predicted optimal parameters and experimental results, and a good agreement was
obtained between predicted and experimental results.

Keywords: AWJM, Kevlar-epoxy composites, Taguchi method, S/N ratio, ANOVA

1. Introduction:
Abrasive water jet machining (AWJM) is one of the non-traditional machining processes that have
been used extensively in various industrial applications. The basic principles of abrasive water jet
machining (AWJM) were reviewed and discussed by Momber and Kovacevic [1]. This technology
is also less sensitive to material properties, does not cause chatter, has no thermal effects, imposes
minimal stresses on the work piece. But loud noise and a messy working environment are some
drawbacks of this machining process [2, 3].
Composite materials are increasingly used in various advanced engineering applications,
because of the unique properties; they can be manufactured by combining two or more different
materials which can produce a better combination of properties from both constituent phases [4].
Machining of composite materials generally include are cutting, drilling or contouring operations
etc. Drilling is one of the most commonly used machining processes to install fasteners for
assembly of laminate composites in aerospace industry. The machining of the composite laminates
(GFRP) may generate several kinds of damage like fibre pull out, matrix cracking and
delamination which severely affect their mechanical properties [5, 6].
It has been found out that glass and carbon fibre-reinforced composites can be machined
easily with standard tools [7, 8] but it is difficult to machine Kevlar-epoxy fibres with any
composite reinforcement due to their higher toughness and flexibility [9]. These fibres are
especially useful for their outstanding strength to weight ratios, which is superior to metals. That’s
why machining of kevlar-epoxy composites is a major research issue and requires the need to
understand the optimum levels of process parameters for better surface finish [10].

1
 AWJM is the useful method for machining fibre reinforced composites unlike other non-
traditional machining processes such as laser machining suffers from the problem of heat-affected
zones which resulted in large burr formation [11]. It is a contact less machining process and offers
some other advantages like narrow kerf width, negligible heat affected zone, reduced material
waste and flexibility to machining process [12].
There are various AWJM process parameters that can affect the machined surfaces quality
considerably as mentioned in the literature [12,13,14]. In the present work, water jet pressure,
abrasive flow rate and quality level each having three levels were considered. The purpose of this
study is to develop a methodology to optimize the process parameters in AWJM of Kevlar-epoxy
composites for minimum surface roughness using Taguchi method. Taguchi method is an
important technique in robust design and allows the effects of several process parameters to be
determined efficiently. This method forms signal to noise (S/N) ratio as the objective function for
matrix experiments. The S/N ratio is used to measure the quality characteristics as well as the
significant machining parameters through analysis of variance (ANOVA) [5,14,15]. A
mathematical model will also be developed for the prediction of surface roughness by means of
multiple linear regression.

2. Experimental procedure:

2.1, Sample Fabrication (Material):

In this experimental work, kevlar-epoxy (K285, Volume fraction 50%) composites were prepared
by hand lay-up process. The sample thickness was 2 mm.

2.2, Equipment:
The experiments were performed on the OMAX 2652 Abrasive Water jet, with pump capacity of
40 horse power, nozzle of orifice diameter 0.3556 mm and mixing tube diameter of 0.762 mm,
precision X-Y table for the movement of the cutting head, hopper attached with cutting head to
feed the abrasive and a controller as shown in Figure 1 below. The Surface Roughness was
measured using Taylor-Hobson subtronic stylus profilometer over the edge of the cut specimen.

Figure 1. Photograph of Abrasive Water Jet Machine setup [16]

2
2.3, Plan of experiments:
For the elaboration of experimental plan, we used the Taguchi method for three factors at three
levels. By levels we mean the values taken by the factors. Table 1 indicates the factors to be
studied and the assignments of the corresponding levels. The orthogonal array chosen was L27(313)
which has 27 rows corresponding to the number of tests ( 26 degree of freedom) with 13 columns
at three levels, as shown in Table 2. The factors and their interactions are assigned to the columns.
The plan of experiments is made of 27 tests (test rows) in which the first column was assigned to
the water jet pressure (A) and the second column to the abrasive flow rate (B) and the fifth column
to the quality level (C) and the remaining were assigned to the interactions [15] as shown in Table
2.1. The response to be studied is the Surface Roughness (Ra).
Table 1. Levels of the variables used in the experiment
Process Parameters Units Low Medium High
Water Jet Pressure (A) MPa 250 (A1) 300 (A2) 350 (A3)
Abrasive Flow Rate (B) g/min 250 (B1) 325 (B2) 400 (B3)
Quality Level (C) --- 3 (C1) 4 (C2) 5 (C3)

3. Data analysis:
The plan of tests was developed with the aim of relating the influence of the water jet pressure,
abrasive flow rate and quality level to perform the AWJM operation and the surface roughness
obtained in kevlar-epoxy work piece.
The statistical treatment of the data was made in two ways. The first one was concerned
with the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and the Response obtained based on chosen S/N ratio. A
ranking was established between the different process parameters based on the Delta statistic for a
particular category of quality characteristics. Then a mathematical model was developed between
the given variables using multiple regression. Finally, the experimental results were compared
with the predicted values using confirmation test.

3.1, Analysis of S/N ratio:

In the Taguchi method, the term ‘signal’ represents the desirable value (mean) for the output
characteristic and the term ‘noise’ represents the undesirable value (S.D.) for the output
characteristic. Therefore, the S/N ratio is the ratio of the mean to the S.D. Taguchi uses the S/N
ratio to measure the quality character deviating from the desired value. The S/N ratio η is defined
as
η = −10 log10(M.S.D.) (1)
Where M.S.D. is the mean-square deviation for the output characteristic. To obtain optimal cutting
performance, ‘the-smaller-is-better’ quality characteristics for surface roughness will be taken for
obtaining optimal cutting performance. The M.S.D. for the-smaller-is-better quality characteristic
can be expressed as:
1 n 2
M.S.D=  ∑ H i  (2)
N  i =1 
Where Hi is the value of Surface Roughness for the ith test. n is the number of tests and N is the
total number of data points.
The response obtained from experiments was analyzed using response table and graphical
representation of main effects and interaction effect of given process variables.

3
3.2, ANOVA and the effect of factors:
An analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the data with the surface roughness in Kevlar-epoxy
composites, with the objective of analyzing the influence of the water jet pressure, abrasive flow
rate and quality level on the total variance of the results. Table 3 shows the results of ANOVA for
S/N ratios of surface roughness. This analysis was carried out for level of significance of 1%; it
means for a level of confidence of 99%. From the analysis of Table 3, we can observe that the
water jet pressure (P=0.00) and quality level (P=0.00) have statistical and physical significance on
the surface roughness. Water jet pressure and quality level also have significant interaction effect
(P=0.00) while water jet pressure and abrasive flow rate have no significant interaction (P=0.442).
Table 4 shows the Response for S/N ratio smaller-is-better based on Delta statistic. The Delta
statistic is the highest average for each factor minus the lowest average for each factor. From the
Delta values obtained, we can say that quality level has the rank 1 (Highest Delta value=4.57)
while abrasive flow rate has the rank 3 (Lowest Delta value=0.30).

Table 2 Taguchi DOE L27 (313) TOA [15]

Experiments 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
A B C
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3
5 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1
6 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 2
7 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 2
8 1 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 3
9 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1
10 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
11 2 1 2 3 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1
12 2 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2
13 2 2 3 1 1 2 3 2 3 1 3 1 2
14 2 2 3 1 2 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 3
15 2 2 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 3 2 3 1
16 2 3 1 2 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 1
17 2 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 3 3 1 2
18 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 3
19 3 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2
20 3 1 3 2 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3
21 3 1 3 2 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1
22 3 2 1 3 1 3 2 2 1 3 3 2 1
23 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 3 2 1 1 3 2
24 3 2 1 3 3 2 1 1 3 2 2 1 3
25 3 3 2 1 1 3 2 3 2 1 2 1 3
26 3 3 2 1 2 1 3 1 3 2 3 2 1
27 3 3 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 3 1 3 2

4
 Table 2.1. Taguchi DOE-Process parameters and measured Surface Roughness

Test Water Jet Pressure Abrasive Flow Rate Quality Level Surface Roughness
(A) (B) (C) (Ra)
1 250 250 3 8.00
2 250 250 4 6.48
3 250 250 5 4.96
4 250 325 3 8.10
5 250 325 4 6.58
6 250 325 5 5.06
7 250 400 3 8.19
8 250 400 4 6.67
9 250 400 5 5.15
10 300 250 3 7.35
11 300 250 4 5.83
12 300 250 5 4.31
13 300 325 3 7.45
14 300 325 4 5.93
15 300 325 5 4.41
16 300 400 3 7.54
17 300 400 4 6.02
18 300 400 5 4.50
19 350 250 3 6.70
20 350 250 4 5.18
21 350 250 5 3.66
22 350 325 3 6.80
23 350 325 4 5.28
24 350 325 5 3.76
25 350 400 3 6.89
26 350 400 4 5.37
27 350 400 5 3.85
Mean = 5.93

Table 3. ANOVA Table for signal to noise ratio (S/N ratios)

Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P

WJP 2 16.771 16.7715 8.3857 618.46 0.000
AFR 2 0.416 0.4164 0.2082 15.35 0.002
QL 2 94.072 94.0723 47.0362 3469.00 0.000
WJP*AFR 4 0.057 0.0566 0.0141 1.04 0.442
WJP*QL 4 1.460 1.4605 0.3651 26.93 0.000
AFR*QL 4 0.092 0.024 0.0231 1.70 0.241
Residual error 8 0.108 0.1085 0.0136
Total 26 112.978

5
 Table 3.1. Response Table

Level Water Jet Pressure Abrasive Flow Rate Quality Level

1 -16.06 -15.00 -17.40
2 -15.22 -15.12 -15.20
3 -14.14 -15.30 -12.83
Delta 1.93 0.30 4.57
Rank 2 3 1

w a te r Je t P r. A b ra s iv e F lo w R a te
-1 3

-1 5

-1 7

250 300 350 250 325 400

Q u a lit y L e v e l
-1 3

-1 5

-1 7

3 4 5

Figure 2. Main effect plot S/N ratio for surface roughness.

2 50 3 30 40 0
12 W ater
Jet Pr.
250
15 300
W ater Jet Pr.
350
18
-12 Q uality
Lev el
-15 3
Ab rasive Flow R ate 4
5
-18
12
A bras iv e
Flow Rate
15 250
Qu ality Level 325
18 400

2 50 30 0 35 0 3 4 5

Figure 3. Interaction plot S/N ratio for surface roughness.

6
 8.5
8
Predicted Surface

7.5
Roughness (Ra)

7 Figure 4. Comparison of
6.5 experimental and predicted
6 value of Surface Roughness.
5.5 (Line indicates the ideal case).
5
4.5
4
3.5
3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00 7.50 8.00 8.50

Measured Surface Roughness (Ra)

Table 5. Levels of process parameters used for confirmation tests

Test Water Jet Pressure Abrasive Flow Rate Quality
(MPa) (g/min) Level
1 250 400 3
2 300 325 4
3 350 250 5

Table 6. Comparison of experimental and predicted results

Test Surface Roughness
Experimental Predicted by Model (( Eq. (1)) (%) Error
1 8.2 8.19 -0.12
2 5.9 5.93 0.55
3 3.9 3.66 -6.48

4. Correlations:
The correlations between factors (water jet pressure, abrasive flow rate and quality level) and
predicted surface roughness in Kevlar-epoxy work piece were obtained by multiple linear
regression. The empirical model equation obtained was as follows:
Ra = 15.5 - 0.0130*WJP + 0.00125*AFR - 1.52*QL (3)
where, Ra the surface roughness obtained in µm, WJP in MPa, AFR in g/min and QL represent the
different quality levels.

5. Confirmation tests:
The various process parameter levels selected for confirmation tests are shown in Table 5 while
Table 6 shows the results obtained where a comparison was done between values obtained from
the model developed in the present work (eq. (3)), with the values obtained experimentally. From
the analysis of Table 6, we can observe that the calculated error for surface roughness have only -
6.48 and -0.12 as maximum and minimum values respectively. From eq. (3), R2 is found to be
0.979 (Square value of regression co-efficient) predict well the evolution of the surface roughness
with the given parameters (water jet pressure, abrasive flow rate and quality level) with a
reasonably good degree of agreement with the experimental results as shown in Figure 4.

7
6. Conclusions:
On the basis of experimental results, calculation of S/N ratios, analysis of variance (ANOVA),
confirmation test results and developed mathematical model, the following conclusions can be
drawn for effective AWJM of Kevlar-epoxy composites are as follows
1. Water jet pressure and quality level are the most significant factors affecting surface roughness
while interaction between water jet pressure and quality level is equally significant but
abrasive flow rate is almost negligible effect among the given variables.
2. The recommended combination of process parameters for minimum surface roughness or
optimum surface finish as shown in Figure 2 is A3B1C3.
3. The developed mathematical model successfully predicted the surface roughness of AWJ
machined kevlar-epoxy composite and can be used for determination of process parameters for
tailored surface quality.
7. References:
1. Momber A W, and Kovacevic R, Principles of Abrasive Water Jet Machining, Springer Verlag
Limited, London (1992), p 89.
2. Choi G S, and Choi G H, Process Analysis and Monitoring in Abrasive Water Jet Machining of
Alumina Ceramics, Int J Mach Tools Manuf 37 (1997) 295.
3. Wang J, and Wong W C K, A Study of Water jet Cutting of Metallic Coated Sheet Steels, Int J
Mach Tools Manuf 39 (1999) 855.
4. Campbell F C, Manufacturing Processes for Advanced Composites, Elsevier Advanced
Technology, Oxford, UK (2004) p 2.
5. Mohan N S, Kulkarni S M, and Ramachandra A, Delamination Analysis in Drilling Process of
Glass Fiber Reinforced Plastic (GFRP) Composite Materials, J of Mat Process Tech 186
(2007) 265.
6. Capello E, Workpiece Damping and its Effect on Delamination Damage in Drilling Thin
Composite Laminates, J of Mat Process Tech 148 (2004) 186.
7. Konig W, Wulf C, Grass P, and Willerscheid H, Machining of Fibre Reinforced Plastics, Manuf
Tech, Annals of CIRP 34(1985) 537.
8. Sakuma K, and Seto M, Tool Wear in Cutting Glass Fibre Reinforced Plastics, Bull JSME 24
(1981) 748.
9. Bhattacharyya D, and Horrigan D P W, A Study of Hole Drilling in Kevlar Composites, Comp
Sci & Tech 58 (1998) 267.
10. Rahmah A, Khan A A, and Ramulu M, A Study of Abrasive Water jet Machining of Kevlar
Composite, in Proc of 12th U.S. Water Jet Conf (2003) 4-F.
11. Shanmugam D K, Chen F L, Siores E, and Brandt M, Comparative Study of Jetting Machining
Technologies over Laser Machining Technology for Cutting Composite Materials, Comp Struc
57 (2002) 289.
12. Hashish M, Advances in Composite Machining with Abrasive-Water jets, Process Manuf
Comp Mat 49 (1991) 93.
13. Wang J, A Machinability Study of Polymer Matrix Composites using Abrasive Water Jet
Cutting, J of Mat Process Tech 94 (1999) 30.
14. Azmir M A, and Ahsan A K, Investigation of Glass/Epoxy Composite Surfaces Machined by
Abrasive Water Jet Machining, J of Mat Process Tech (2007) ( in press).
15. Phadke M S, Quality Engineering Using Robust Design, Prentice Hall, Eaglewood cliffs, NJ
(1989) p 1.
16. www.waterjets.org/about_abrasivejets.