Journal of Manufacturing Engineering, March 2016, Vol. 11, Issue.

1, pp 001-006

AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF SURFACE ROUGHNESS IN

ABRASIVE WATERJET MACHINING OF CARBON FIBER
REINFORCED POLYMER USING ORTHOGONAL ARRAY
WITH GREY RELATIONAL ANALYSIS
Ajit Dhanawade and *Shailendra Kumar
Department of Mechanical Engineering, S V National Institute of Technology, Surat, India.

ABSTRACT
Carbon fiber reinforced polymeris an extremely strong and light fiber-reinforced polymer
composite. It is widely used in advanced technological applications.In the present work, surface
roughness in abrasive waterjet machining of carbon fiber reinforced polymer is studied. Three distinct
regions on machined samples are identified to measure surface roughness. Microscopic features of
machined surfaces are analysed using SEM. Optimization of process parameters is performed using
orthogonal array with the grey relational analysis to minimize the surface roughness in all regions. A
set of machining parameters namely standoff distance, hydraulic pressure, traverse rate, and abrasive
mass flow rate is optimized. Further ANOVA for grey relation grades (GRG) is performed and it is
found that pressure and traverse rate are the most significant parameters in influencing surface
roughness. GRG of optimized set of process parameters is predicted using the results of experimental
analysis. Confirmation tests are carried out to verify the experimental analysis and optimized set of
parameters.
Keywords: Abrasive water jet machining, Surface roughness, Carbon fiber reinforced polymer,
Process parameters.

1. Introduction

machined surfaces reveals three distinct zones: top

region (damaged at jet entry), middle region (smooth
finish) and bottom region (rough and uncut at jet
exit).Some researchers have investigated the cutting
performance of AWJM process for composites through
cutting performance measure such as surface roughness.
For example, Ramulu and Arola[6] carried out an
experimental investigation to determine the influence of
cutting parameters on the surface roughness and kerf
taper of an AWJ machined graphite/epoxy laminate.
Arola and Ramulu[7] investigated kerf geometry, kerf
wall features and cutting front characteristics of graphite
epoxy laminates machined by AWJ. An experimental
investigation of the machinability and kerf
characteristics of polymer matrix composite sheets
using AWJM is carried out by Wang [8]. Azmir et al.
[9] performed experimental investigation to assess the
influence of AWJM process parameters on surface
roughness and kerf taper ratio of aramid fibre reinforced
plastics (AFRP).Further Azmir and Ahsan[10] studied
surface roughness and kerf taper ratio characteristics of
an AWJ machined surfaces of glass/epoxy composite
laminate. Miron et al. [11] performed machining of
composite material by water jet and abrasive water jet
cutting processes to analyze the possibilities for water
jet cutting of complex composite parts.From the review
of available literature, it is found that no work has been

Composite materials are widely used in

advanced technological applications such as aerospace,
transportation, construction, marine goods, sporting
goods, and infrastructure because of their better
mechanical properties such as high strength, low
density, corrosion resistance, stiffness and impact
[1,2,3]. Composite materials give high strength to
weight ratio as compared to metals and other materials.
Carbon fiberreinforced polymer (CFRP) is an extremely
strong and light fiber-reinforced polymer which
contains carbon fibers. The machining of CFRP by
conventional means is difficult due to excessive tool
wear,
delamination,
and
improper
kerf
properties.Abrasive water jet machining (AWJM) is one
of the preferred non-traditional machining processes for
machining of composite materials. A high speed water
jet with abrasive particles is used in this process. As the
high speed abrasive water jet (AWJ) impinges on the
workpiece, erosion of workpiece occurs resulting in
cutting/machining of workpiece material. This process
is suitable for heat sensitive materials especially
composites because it produces no heat, no chatter, and
low stresses in workpiece material. Also this process is
versatile and flexible [4,5]. Kerf properties of AWJ
machined workpiece areinfluenced by numerous
parameters. Microstructural evaluation of
AWJ
*Corresponding Author - E- mail: dhanawadeajitd@gmail.com
www.smenec.org

001

SME

Journal of Manufacturing Engineering, March 2016, Vol. 11, Issue. 1, pp 001-006

reported on experimental investigation on cutting

performance of AWJM of CFRP.
This paper presents an investigation on
influence of process parameters on surface roughness in
AWJM of CFRP. Grey relation grades (GRA) approach
is used to optimize multiple performance characteristics
of surface roughness at different cutting regions. In the
present study four parameters namely, stand-off
distance, pressure, traverse rate and abrasive mass flow
rate are considered for analysis.

level design, L32 orthogonal array is selected for the

experimentation as shown in Table 3.
Table 2. Selected machining parameters and their
levels
Sl.
No.
1.
2.

A flying arm CNC abrasive water jet cutting

machine (Fig. 1) with designed pressure of 300 MPa
and traverse speed upto 10000 mm/min is used to cut
samples of CFRP workpiece material. The machine is
equipped with abrasive hopper with automatic abrasive
feeding. The positional and repeat accuracy of the
machine is 0.04 mm. Mechanical properties of CFRP
material are as given in Table 1.

Value

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.

Unit
--

Compressive Strength - Longitudinal

570

MPa

Density
Young's Modulus - Longitudinal

1.5
70

g cm-3
GPa

Level
4
--

200

220

240

260

SOD
(mm)

P
(MPa)

TR
(mm/min)

AMFR
(gm/min)

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0

200
200
200
200
220
220
220
220
240
240
240
240
260
260
260
260
200
200
200
200
220
220
220
220
240
240
240
240
260
260
260
260

50
100
150
200
50
100
150
200
50
100
150
200
50
100
150
200
50
100
150
200
100
50
150
200
50
100
150
200
50
100
150
200

600
700
800
900
600
700
800
900
700
600
900
800
700
600
900
800
900
800
700
600
900
900
700
600
800
900
600
700
800
900
600
700

2.2 Surface roughness measurement

In the present work, the response characteristic
for experiments is surface roughness (Ra). Surface
roughness is measured by using surface roughness tester
(Model -Mitutoyo SJ-210 ISO 1997). The cut off length
for the measurement is set as 0.8 mm and total sampling
length as 4 mm and traverse speed as 0.5 mm/s
throughout the measurement of surface. Surface
roughness at three different regions is measured. Then
these values of surface roughness are considered as

2.1 Experimental Design

Surface roughness in AWJM is influenced by
numerous parameters of the process. Table 2 shows
machining parameters and their levels selected for the
present study based on available setup range of machine
and review of published literature.Based on defined four
control factors with their respective levels, for a mixed

www.smenec.org

Level
3
--

P (MPa)

Expt.
no.

Table 1. Mechanical properties of CFRP material

60

Level
2
2.0

Table 3. L32 orthogonal array

Fig. 1 AWJM setup

Property

SOD (mm)

Level
1
1.0

3.
TR (mm/min)
50
100
150
200
4.
AMFR (g/min)
600
700
800
900
SOD- Stand-off distance, P- Jet pressure, TR- Traverse rate,
AMFR- Abrasive mass flow rate

2. Experimental Work

Carbon percentage by weight

Parameter

002

SME

Journal of Manufacturing Engineering, March 2016, Vol. 11, Issue. 1, pp 001-006

three different performances

consideration for further analysis.

and

taken

into

Table 5. Average GRG for each level

Level

3. Result and Discussion

Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4

After experimentation, the influence of process

parameters on surface roughness is investigated through
GRA approach. Also it is used to optimize a set of
process parameters for minimum surface roughness.
Table 4 shows the GRGs of surface roughness values
(Ra) at various regions. The higher GRG signifies that
the experimental results are closer to the supremely
normalized value. The average GRGs for different
combinations of factors and levels are shown in Table 5.
The mean GRG for each level of the machining
parameters are calculated by averaging the GRGs and it
is graphically represented based on orthogonal array as
shown in Fig. 3 (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e).

Surface roughness (Ra) at

7 mm
14 mm
22 mm
2.865
3.485
3.474
3.239
3.237
3.849
3.187
3.79
3.865
3.541
3.893
4.373
3.063
3.138
3.629
3.159
3.384
3.472
3.308
3.474
3.709
2.942
3.566
4.015
2.57
2.993
3.298
2.669
2.769
3.578
2.74
3.587
3.881
2.706
3.93
3.964
2.495
2.641
3.151
2.704
3.062
3.273
2.838
3.148
3.391
2.813
3.843
4.091
3.14
3.484
3.537
3.246
3.448
3.812
3.351
3.747
4.214
2.761
3.534
5.99
2.506
2.761
3.267
2.523
2.762
3.231
2.900
3.192
3.453
2.841
3.475
4.750
2.549
2.887
2.859
2.983
2.731
3.776
2.555
3.239
3.595
3.320
3.513
3.875
2.554
2.652
3.020
2.700
2.874
3.062
3.020
3.718
3.521
3.604
4.005
3.630

www.smenec.org

Average GRGs
P
TR
0.485499
0.756669
0.627501
0.673733
0.676611
0.561303
0.690391
0.488297

AMFR
0.601149
0.597512
0.654087
0.627253

(a) Effect of stand-off distance on GRG

From Fig. 2 (a), it is observed that at 1 mm
SOD, GRG is 0.597848 and when SOD increased from
1 mm to 2 mm, the GRG increased to 0.642153. This is
a small rise in GRG as SOD is increased. But this shows
that as SOD increased, the surface roughness is
decreased. This may be due to the fact that at lower
SOD primary wavelength is less but further increase in
SOD results in more primary wavelength. This
accelerates abrasive particles with high speed jet.

Table 4. GRGs of surface roughness

Expt.
no.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.

SOD
0.597848
0.642153
---

(b) Effect of pressure on GRG

From Fig. 2(b), it is observed that at 200 MPa
pressure, GRG is 0.485499, whereas it is increased
upto0.690391 at 260 Mpa pressure. A considerable
increase in GRG is observed with increase in pressure.
But this shows that as pressure increased, surface
roughness is considerably decreased. The increase in
pressure causes increase in particle velocity at nozzle
exit and particle fragmentation inside the nozzle. This
fragmentation reduces the size of impacting particle.
Also an increase in pump pressure increases abrasive
water jet kinetic energy. This excess kinetic energy cuts
the material with minimum roughness.

GRG
0.526910
0.524426
0.475369
0.402484
0.580916
0.550760
0.501252
0.517765
0.773809
0.762799
0.572500
0.552200
0.947600
0.711810
0.645927
0.519044
0.535761
0.501456
0.436864
0.480719
0.874727
0.869749
0.618654
0.506184
0.882057
0.681976
0.705127
0.402418
0.931568
0.786885
0.534730
0.445562

(c) Effect of traverse rate on GRG

At traverse speed of 50 mm/min, the GRG is
0.756669, and when the traverse speed is gradually
increased upto 200 mm/min; the GRG is reduced to
0.488297as shown in Fig. 2 (c). This shows that, surface
roughness is increased with increase in traverse rate.
The reason is that increasing the traverse rate allows less
overlap machining action and fewer abrasive particles to
impinge on the surface and hence increases roughness.

(d) Effect of abrasive mass flow rate on

GRG
From Fig. 2 (d), it is seen that, at 600 g/min AMFR,
GRG is 0.601149, the GRG is decreased to 0.597512 at
700 g/min and then at 800 g/min, it increased upto
0.654087. Further GRG again decreased to 0.627253.
This is a small variation in GRG with increase in AMFR
The primary function of abrasives is to cut the material
therefore higher the abrasive flow rate, higher should be
the cutting ability of the jet. But for higher abrasive flow

003

SME

Journal of Manufacturing Engineering, March 2016, Vol. 11, Issue. 1, pp 001-006

rate, abrasives collide among themselves and lose their

kinetic energy and hence it fails to cut the surface with
smooth finish.
Fig. 2 (e) shows that traverse rate and pressure
considerably affects surface roughness. Surface
roughness is increased as the traverse speed is increased
whereas when pressure is increased, surface roughness
is decreased. Surface roughness increases with increase
in SOD. AMFR shows very less variation in surface
roughness as compared to other three factors.

(d)

(a)

(e)
Fig. 2 (a) GRG v/s SOD, (b) GRG v/s P, (c) GRG v/s
TR, (d) GRG v/s AMFR, (e) Combined effect of all
process parameters on GRG

4. Microscopic Features of Surfaces

(b)

Fig. 3 AWJ machined surface of CFRP material

Fig. 3 shows AWJ machined surface of CFRP
material and its variations occurred during machining.
The machined surface reveals three distinct regions i.e.

(c)

www.smenec.org

004

SME

Journal of Manufacturing Engineering, March 2016, Vol. 11, Issue. 1, pp 001-006

top region (damaged at jet entry), middle region

(smooth finish) and bottom region (rough and uncut at
jet exit). The variation in surface roughness at these
three regions according to pressure is shown in Fig.
4.During AWJM, as AWJ impinges on the workpiece
material, some part of the kinetic energy of AWJ is used
for erosion of the material from top region. During this
erosion process, AWJ loses its kinetic energy. Further
the jet with lower kinetic energy tends to deflect in
upward direction i.e. normal to the cutting plane. This
jet deflection results in rough surface and striations
formation.

(Sample 1- 2.0 mm (SOD) 260 MPa (P) 50 mm/min

(TR) 800 g/min (AMFR)
Sample 2- 2.0 mm (SOD) 200 MPa (P) 200 mm/min
(TR) 800 g/min (AMFR))
Two samples are examined using SEM (at 1000X) to
evaluate the microscopic features of the AWJ machined
surfaces as shown in Fig. 5. It is observed that smooth
surface is achieved in first sample which is cut at high
pressure and low traverse rate. However surface with
high roughness is observed in second sample. Also
defects like fiber pull out and abrasive embedment are
observed in second sample which is cut at low pressure
and high traverse rate.

5. ANOVA for GRG

Table 5. ANOVA for GRGs of surface roughness
Source

SS

DF

MS

Fcal

Ftable
(0.05)
4.32
3.47
3.47
3.47

SOD
0.016
1
0.016
1.797
I
P
0.210
3
0.070
8.031
S
TR
0.339
3
0.113
12.928
S
AMFR
0.017
3
0.006
0.634
I
error
0.183
21
0.009
Total
0.765
31
SS- sum of squares; DF- degree of freedom; MS- mean square; F- F
ratio; R- Remark; S- Significant, I- Insignificant

Fig. 4 Surface roughness v/s depth of measurements

at different pressures

The results of ANOVA are summarized in

Table 5. It is clear that pressure and traverse rate have
significant effect on GRGs and consequently on surface
roughness.
5.1 Predicted grey relation grade
T = Overall average of the grey relational grades =
0.556533
Predicted grey relational grade = A2 + B4 + C1 + D3
3T = 0.642153 + 0.690393 + 0.756669 + 0.654091 3 x
0.620003 = 0.883297

(a)

5.2 Confirmation experiments

The confirmation experiments are carried out
by setting the parameters at their optimal values as 2
mm (SOD) - 260 MPa (P) - 50 mm/min (TR) - 800
gm/min (AMFR). The results of confirmation tests are
summarized in Table 6.
Table 6. Results of confirmation tests
Sample

(b)

1
2
3
4

Fig. 5 SEM images of (a) sample 1 and (b) sample 2

www.smenec.org

005

Optimum cutting parameters

SOD (2.0)-P (260)-TR (50)-AMFR (800)
Average surface roughness
2.749
2.899
3.052
2.865

SME

Journal of Manufacturing Engineering, March 2016, Vol. 11, Issue. 1, pp 001-006

6. Conclusion
An experimental study of AWJM of CFRP has
been presented. Three distinct regions are observed on
machined surfaces i.e. top region (damaged at jet entry),
middle region (smooth finish) and bottom region (rough
and uncut at jet exit).It is found that pressure and
traverse rate are the most significant factor to control
surface roughness. It is observed that surface roughness
decreases with increase in pressure. Hence with higher
pressure, minimum surface roughness is achieved. An
increase in the traverse speed causes a constant increase
in the surface roughness. The experimental results for
the optimal parameters show that there is considerable
improvement in the surface finish. The confirmation
testresults show that, CFRP material can be effectively
cut by AWJM with minimum surface roughness.

References
1.

Campbell F C (2010), Introduction to Composite Materials,

Structural Composite, Materials, ASM International.

2.

Rajasekaran T and Vigneshkumar S (2015), Experimental

Analysis on the Wear Behavior of Natural Fiber Reinforced
Polymer Composites, Journal of Manufacturing Engineering,
Vol. 10(3), 139-143.

3.

Dhanawade A and Kumar S (2014), Abrasive Water Jet

Machining of Composites, A Review Journal of Manufacturing
Engineering, Vol. 9(3), 136-142.

5.

Sheikh-Ahmad J Y (2009), Non-traditional Machining of FRPs,

Machining of Polymer Composites, Springer Science +
Business Media, 237-289.

6.

Ramulu M and Arola D (1993), The Influence Of Abrasive

Waterjet Cutting Conditions On The Surface Quality Of
Graphite/Epoxy Laminates, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manufact., Vol.
343, 295313.

7.

Arola D and Ramulu M (1996), A Study of Kerf Characteristics

in Abrasive Waterjet Machining of Graphite/Epoxy Composite,
J. Eng. Mater. Technol., Vol. 118(2), 256-265

8.

Wang J (1999), Abrasive Waterjet Machining of Polymer

Matrix Composites - Cutting Performance, Erosive Process
and Predictive Models, The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 1510, 757768.

9.

Azmir M A Ahsan A K and Rahmah A (2007), Investigation on

abrasive waterjet machining of kevlar reinforced phenolic
composite using taguchi approach, IntConf on MechEngg
(ICME2007), Bangladesh.

10. Azmir M and Ahsan A (2009), A study of abrasive water jet

machining process on glass/epoxy composite laminate, Journal
of Materials Processing Technology, Vol. 20920, 61686173.

Karthick S Balaramalingam M and Sudarsanan B (2014),

Optimization Techniques of Turning Parameters of In-Situ
Metal Matrix Composite for Surface Roughness Using Taguchi
Method, Journal of Manufacturing Engineering, Vol. 9(4),
226-229.

www.smenec.org

4.

11. Miron A V Balc N Popa A Stefana C and Bere P (2013),

Studies On Water Jet Cutting of 2D Parts Made From Carbon
Fibre Composite Materials, Academic Journal of
Manufacturing Engineering, Vol. 112, 8792.

006

SME