Abrasive Water Jet Machining of Banana Fiber Reinforced Polyester Composite

Journal of Natural Fibers
Fo
Performance Evaluation of Abrasive Water Jet Machining on

Banana Fiber Reinforced Polyester Composite
rP
Journal: Journal of Natural Fibers

ee
Manuscript ID WJNF-2015-0200.R2
Manuscript Type: Original Article

rR
Surface Roughness, Kerf Angle, Abrasive Water Jet Machining, Banana

Keywords: Fiber Reinforced Polyester Composite, Surface Morphology, Mechanical
Property
ev
ie
w
On
ly
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jnf Email: ryszard.kozlowski@escorena.net

Page 1 of 15 Journal of Natural Fibers
1
2
3 Performance Evaluation of Abrasive Water Jet Machining on Banana Fiber Reinforced
4
5 Polyester Composite
6
7
8
9 ABSTRACT
10
11 This work deals with the investigation of Abrasive Water Jet Machining (AWJM) on
12
13 banana fiber reinforced polyester composite. The composite is prepared with 20 wt. % of
14
Fo
15 fiber through hand layup method followed by compression molding. Experiments are
16
17
conducted to assess the influence of each input parameters on the output responses namely
18
rP
19
20 surface roughness (Ra) and kerf angle. The study is performed by varying the water pressure,
21
22 traverse speed (TS) and standoff distance (SD). From the experiments it is observed that the
ee
23
24 standoff distance contributes more on affecting Ra by 60.63% and kerf angle by 74.80%. The
25
26 suitable cutting parameters are suggested for achieving quality output and the cut surface
rR
27
28
29 morphology is observed through Scanning Electron Microscopic (SEM) images.
30
Keywords: surface roughness, kerf angle, water pressure, traverse speed, standoff distance
ev
31
32
33
34
ie
35 1. INTRODUCTION
36
37
w
In the recent years, the natural fiber reinforced composites created a great interest
38
39
40 among researchers towards technological developments. Among different fibers available,
On
41
42 the banana fiber (a waste product obtained from the dry stalks of banana trees) offers a wide
43
44 possibility for engineering applications. In general, the banana fiber reinforced polyester
45
ly
46 composites are used for structural applications, as they possess a good mechanical property,
47
48
49 eco-friendly and are renewable. To apply the composites in such applications, a secondary
50
51 processing is essential. The machining is one such method which can produce a near net
52
53 shape product with improved dimensional accuracy. The development in technologies creates
54
55 the usage of non-conventional energy sources instead of conventional method. One of its kind
56
57
is the AWJM by which the composite materials are being cut by using water and abrasive
58
59
60 1
Journal of Natural Fibers Page 2 of 15
1
2
3 particles as the source (Thirumalai Kumaran et al. 2015). Due to the low operating cost, the
4
5 water jets are also used i) to slice bread and trimming of fats from meat in food processing
6
7
industries, ii) to remove tattoos and liposuction for endoscopy in medical field, and, iii) to cut
8
9
10 marbles, granites, ceramics and composite materials. The accuracy, ease of use and the zero
11
12 heat defects attracts more researchers to utilize AWJM. It also prevents the surface hardening
13
14 of the material and eliminates the Heat Affected Zone (HAZ) produced on the surface and
Fo
15
16 sub-surface of the composite. The three most essential parameters that affect the cutting
17
18
quality are water pressure, traverse speed and standoff distance. The output quality of the
rP
19
20
21 material is assessed based on the surface roughness and kerf angle. Increased Ra and kerf
22
ee
23 angle may lead to some defective products in industries and thus the lower values are
24
25 expected for an efficient assembly.
26
rR
27
The study on banana fiber reinforced polyester composites are reported by many
28
29
30 authors and they are well known for its properties. The synthesis and characterization studies
ev
31
32 was performed by Ansari et al. (2014) and they observed an improved tensile and tear
33
34 strength. Pothan and Thomas et al. (2004) investigated the effect of the chemical
ie
35
36 modifications of the fiber on the water absorption properties of banana fiber reinforced
37
w
38
39 polyester composite. They reported that the chemical modifications affect the water uptake of
40
On
41 the composite and is purely dependent on the nature of the composite and temperature.
42
43 Pothan et al. (2003) performed the dynamic mechanical analysis on the banana fiber
44
45
ly
reinforced polyester composite and found that the E values are maximum for the composite
46
47
with 40% fiber loading, indicating that the fiber addition induces reinforcing effects at higher
48
49
50 temperatures. Bentez et al. (2013) proposed the best treatment for improving the thermal
51
52 properties of banana fiber, without any significant decrease in mechanical behavior. The
53
54 combination of 1 N NaOH and saturation pressure was suggested to improve the desired
55
56 property. Boopalan et al. (2013) compared the mechanical and thermal properties of raw jute
57
58
59
60 2
1
2
3 and banana fiber reinforced epoxy hybrid composites. They reported that the addition of
4
5 banana fiber in jute/epoxy composites of up to 50% by weight results in increasing the
6
7
mechanical and thermal properties and decreasing the moisture absorption property. Idicula et
8
9
10 al. (2005) investigated the mechanical properties of short randomly oriented banana and sisal
11
12 hybrid fiber reinforced polyester composites. They found that the maximum tensile strength
13
14 is achieved by the hybrid composite having a ratio of banana and sisal by 4 : 1. A positive
Fo
15
16 hybrid effect is observed for the flexural strength and flexural modulus and a negative hybrid
17
18
effect is observed for the impact strength.
rP
19
20
21 The newer machining technologies were adopted recently to increase the production
22
ee
23 efficiency and to produce high dimensional accurate products. Patel and Shaikh (2014)
24
25 measured the roughness and taper ratio on the banana fiber reinforced composite while
26
rR
27
machining with AWJM. They observed that TS and SD are the most significant parameters
28
29
30 which affect the output response. Kalirasu et al. (2015) performed the machining on banana
ev
31
32 polyester composite and used Taguchi method for optimizing the input parameters of AWJM.
33
34 They reported that the abrasive particle size is the predominant factor which influences on the
ie
35
36 output quality response such as kerf width and kerf taper. Venkateshwaran and ElayaPerumal
37
w
38
39 (2013) performed the drilling study on the natural fiber reinforced composites to predict the
40
On
41 delamination phenomena of the material. The quality of the hole was assessed through
42
43 machine vision technique and the linear regression analysis was performed to study the
44
45
ly
correlation between the input parameters. Kalirasu et al. (2015) conducted the machining
46
47
studies on glass and coconut sheath fiber polyester composites using AWJM. The grey
48
49
50 relational analysis was introduced to investigate the machining quality such as kerf angle and
51
52 surface roughness. They identified that the abrasive particle size as the most influencing
53
54 parameter which decides the quality of cut. Jani et al. (2015) investigated the machinability of
55
56 hybrid natural fiber with and without filler as reinforcements. They revealed that the filler
57
58
59
60 3
1
2
3 reinforced hybrid composite produces a good surface without any delamination or fiber
4
5 pullout. Haddad et al. (2015) used the AWJM for performing the trimming process on
6
7
carbon-fiber reinforced plastic composite and found a reduction in compressive strength with
8
9
10 an increase in Ra. Thus it is found that a very few literatures are available which discusses on
11
12 the machinability of banana fiber reinforced polyester composite. As a result, the state of the
13
14 art technique is adopted to satisfy the scientific and industrial needs.
Fo
15
16 In the present work, the Abrasive Water Jet Machining is proposed to determine the
17
18
suitable input conditions for achieving improved surface finish and reduced kerf angle. Thus
rP
19
20
21 the novelty of the present work is to perform and suggest the appropriate cutting conditions
22
ee
23 for effective output quality parameters. Further, the surface morphology of the cut samples of
24
25 banana fiber reinforced polyester composite is evaluated through SEM images.
26
rR
27
28
29
30 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
ev
31
32 2.1 Fabrication
33
34 Banana fiber of 20 wt. % and length 10 mm is used in this study. The prepared mould
ie
35
36 is coated initially by releasing agent (wax). 1 wt. % of accelerator (cobalt napthenate) and 1
37
w
38
39 wt. % of catalyst (methyl ethyl ketone peroxide) are added to the unsaturated polyester resin
40
On
41 which is procured from Vasivibala Resin Pvt. Ltd., Chennai, India. The mixture is stirred
42
43 until it attains the homogenic condition. After mixing, the resin is poured over the fiber which
44
45
ly
is placed on the mould cavity. Final coat will be followed by the removal of excess resin and
46
47
the mould will be closed with the match die. The plate is compressed finally and removed
48
49
50 after 5 hours. Table 1 shows the mechanical property of the prepared composite.
51
52
53
54 Table 1 Mechanical property of the composite
55
56
57
58
59
60 4
1
2
3 2.2 Experimental Details
4
5 The Dardi Internationals make AWJM is used for conducting the experiments. The 80
6
7
mech (177 microns) garnet particles are used as the abrasives which flow out through the
8
9
10 nozzle of 0.7 mm diameter. Figure 1 shows the initial morphology of the abrasive particles.
11
12 The most considerable parameter in AWJM is the roughness and kerf angle. The Ra is
13
14 measured by M/s. Mitutoyo make Surftest SJ-401 profilometer with a measuring range of
Fo
15
16 350 m, measuring speed of 0.25 mm/s and sampling length of 5 mm. Generally the
17
18
roughness is measured at three different segments of the cut surface and they are smooth
rP
19
20
21 zone, transition zone and rough zone. In this work, Ra is measured along the traverse
22
ee
23 direction in the transition zone. The kerf angle is the other output response which indicates
24
25 the dimensional accuracy of specimen. It is calculated by Equation 1, which depends on the
26
rR
27
top kerf width (TW), bottom kerf width (BW) and the thickness of the composite (t).
28
29
30 Basically, smaller the Ra and kerf angle in the machining process, the better is the machining
ev
31
32 performance.
33
34
ie
35 tan = (1)

36
37
w
The L27 array is selected to carry out the experiments by varying the process
38
39
40 parameters such as water pressure (220260 bar), traverse speed (2040 mm/min) and
On
41
42 standoff distance (13 mm). The Ra and kerf angle is measured for the prepared banana fiber
43
44 reinforced polyester composites and is shown in Table 2.
45
ly
46
47
48
49
Figure 1 Initial morphology of garnet particles
50
51
52
53 Table 2 Experimental results
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 5
1
2
3 3. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4
5 3.1 Surface roughness
6
7
The surface roughness of the composite after machining with variable input
8
9
10 parameters is shown in Figure 2. It is clear that the Ra value increases with an increase in
11
12 water pressure, TS and SD. The increase in water pressure increases the fiber pull out from
13
14 the composite. This is due to the random orientation of fibers which loses the strong bond
Fo
15
16 between the interfaces. The increased divergence of the water and abrasives at higher SD
17
18
condition increases the lateral scattering of the garnet particles. Thus the contact zone tends
rP
19
20
21 to increase and produces poor finish along the cut surface. The high kinetic energy induced
22
ee
23 results with an increased material removal, but produced more damages to the surface of the
24
25 composite. At 20 mm/min, the complete contact of particles is involved due to the adequate
26
rR
27
machining time. However, as the TS is increased to 40 mm/min, the insufficient time for
28
29
30 machining causes tears on the surface by producing some lays and flaws. The maximum of
ev
31
32 5.243 m is observed at pressure at 260 bar, TS at 30 mm/min, SD at 1 mm and a minimum
33
34 of 2.707 m is observed at pressure at 220 bar, TS at 20 mm/min, SD at 1 mm.
ie
35
36
37
w
38
39 Figure 2 Surface roughness
40
On
41
42
43 The response table is computed to find the optimum parametric condition to achieve
44
45
ly
minimum surface roughness. The maximum values of each response are considered as the
46
47
best level. From Table 3 it is clear that the water pressure at 220 bar, TS at 20 mm/min and
48
49
50 SD at 1 mm is the optimum level to be considered to attain a good surface finish. Further, the
51
52 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) is performed to find the contribution of each input
53
54 parameters on Ra. The results of Table 4 shows that the SD contributes more on affecting the
55
56 Ra by 60.63%, followed by water pressure and TS by 26.58% and 12.75% respectively. The
57
58
59
60 6
1
2
3 Fishers test (F-test) shows the significance of input parameters on Ra. It is found that all the
4
5 input machining parameters poses greater FCalculated values (Fishers test) than FTabulated at 95%
6
7
confidence interval (FTabulated=3.49).
8
9
10
11
12 Table 3 Response table for surface roughness
13
14
Fo
15
16 Table 4 ANOVA for surface roughness
17
18
rP
19
20
21 3.2 Kerf angle
22
ee
23 Figure 3 indicates that the kerf angle decreases with an increase in pressure. At 220
24
25 bar, the difference between the top and bottom kerf width is high. It is due to the increased
26
rR
27
tangential movement of the abrasives which creates an uneven morphology at the concave
28
29
30 and the convex side of the cut surface. However at high water pressure, the deviation between
ev
31
32 the kerf widths is much lower than the preceding. The increased TS do not have any
33
34 significant effect on affecting the kerf angle. Despite the fact, there are three possible changes
ie
35
36 that can occur in the kerf surfaces: i) at high speed, a wider kerf width is observed at the top
37
w
38
39 end and narrower at the bottom, ii) at medium speed, similar kerf width is observed both at
40
On
41 the top and bottom end, and iii) at low speed, a narrow kerf width is observed at the top end
42
43 and wider at the bottom. The increase in SD increases the kerf angle substantially. At 3 mm,
44
45
ly
the abrasive particles get splattered from its original line of movement and increase the radial
46
47
length of contact on the composite surface. This increases the material removal and produces
48
49
50 increased kerf angle. The maximum of 4.860 is observed at pressure at 220 bar, TS at 20
51
52 mm/min, SD at 3 mm and a minimum of 0.430 is observed at pressure at 260 bar, TS at 40
53
54 mm/min, SD at 1 mm.
55
56
57
58
59
60 7
1
2
3 Figure 3 Kerf angle
4
5
6
7
Table 5 shows the response table, which is to find the optimum input condition to
8
9
10 achieve minimum kerf angle. It is clear that the pressure at 260 bar, TS at 40 mm/min and SD
11
12 at 1 mm is the best condition to be applied to get lower kerf angle. Further, ANOVA and F
13
14 test is performed to find the contribution and the significance of each input parameters on the
Fo
15
16 output response. The results of Table 6 shows that the SD contributes more on affecting the
17
18
kerf angle by 74.80%, followed by water pressure and TS by 22.35% and 2.68% respectively.
rP
19
20
21 The results of F-test show the insignificance of TS on affecting the kerf angle. However, the
22
ee
23 F values of water pressure and SD are all greater than F0.05, 2, 20 = 3.49 and have statistical,
24
25 physical significance on affecting the kerf angle.
26
rR
27
28
29
30 Table 5 Response table for kerf angle
ev
31
32
33
34 Table 6 ANOVA for kerf angle
ie
35
36
37
w
38
39 3.3 Surface morphology
40
On
41 The cut surface morphology of the composite is shown in Figure 4 (a-d). The
42
43 presence of voids and gap formation between the fiber and the matrix is observed at higher
44
45
ly
cutting conditions. The high cutting energy initiated the breakage of fiber which leads to the
46
47
fiber pullout. Further, the presence of hard abrasive particles induced a high stress during
48
49
50 machining. This made the composite to produce poor surface finish. However, a strong
51
52 interfacial bond is observed between the fiber and matrix at lower cutting conditions. The Ra
53
54 is found to be minimum in the transition zone which reduced the possibility of surface defects
55
56 and improved the quality. Thus the aimed properties such as better machinability and
57
58
59
60 8
1
2
3 improved product quality with high dimensional accuracy are achieved through AWJM
4
5 process.
6
7
8
9
10 Figure 4 Cut surface morphology of the composite
11
12
13
14 CONCLUSION
Fo
15
16 The Abrasive Water Jet Machining of banana fiber reinforced polyester composite is
17
18
successfully performed and the following observations are made:
rP
19
20
21 The Ra value increases with an increase in the input process parameters. However, the
22
ee
23 standoff distance was found to be the most influencing factor affecting the Ra by 60.63%.
24
25 The higher standoff distance with reduced water pressure and traverse speed produces an
26
rR
27
28 increased kerf angle.
29
30 The standoff distance (Q=74.80%) followed by the pressure (Q=22.35%) have a
ev
31
32 statistical and physical significance on affecting the kerf angle.
33
34
The presence of voids and gap formation at higher cutting conditions and the strong
ie
35
36
37 interfacial bond at lower cutting conditions are observed through SEM images.
w
38
39
40
On
41 REFERENCES
42
43 Ansari, M.A., Sachin L. Mali, Sandesh L. Pawar and Ankit C. Pawar. 2014. Synthesis and
44
45
ly
46
characterization of banana fiber composite. Journal of Polymer and Composites, 2: 1-3.
47
48 Bentez A.N., M.D. Monzn, I. Angulo, Z. Ortega, P.M. Hernndez and M.D. Marrero. 2013.
49
50
Treatment of banana fiber for use in the reinforcement of polymeric matrices. Measurement,
51
52
53 46: 1065-1073.
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 9
1
2
3 Boopalan M., M. Niranjanaa and M.J. Umapathy. 2013. Study on the mechanical properties
4
5 and thermal properties of jute and banana fiber reinforced epoxy hybrid composites.
6
7
Composites Part B: Engineering, 51: 54-57.
8
9
10 Haddad M., R. Zitoune, F. Eyma and B. Castani. 2015. Influence of machining process and
11
12 machining induced surface roughness on mechanical properties of continuous fiber
13
14
composites. Experimental Mechanics, 55: 519-528.
Fo
15
16
17 Jani S.P., A. Senthil Kumar, M. Adam Khan and M. Uthayakumar. 2015. Machinablity of
18
rP
19
20
hybrid natural fibre composite with and without filler as reinforcement. Materials and
21
22 Manufacturing Processes, doi: 10.1080/10426914.2015.1117633.
ee
23
24
Jignesh K. Patel and Abdulhafiz A. Shaikh. 2014. An experimental investigation of AWJ
25
26
rR
27 parameters on banana fiber reinforced composite. International Journal of Engineering

28
29 Research & Technology, 3: 608-613.
30
ev
31
32 Kalirasu S., N. Rajini, J.T. Winowlin Jappes, M. Uthayakumar and S. Rajesh. 2015.
33
34 Mechanical and machining performance of glass and coconut sheath fibre polyester
ie
35
36 composites using AWJM. Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites, 34: 564-580.
37
w
38
39 Kalirasu S., N. Rajini, N. Bharath Sagar, D. Mahesh Kumar and A. Gomathi Sankar. 2015.
40
On
41 Studies of Abrasive Water Jet Machining (AWJM) parameters on banana/polyester

42
43 composites using Robust Design Concept. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 787: 573-577.
44
45
ly
46 Laly A. Pothan and Sabu Thomas. 2004. Effect of hybridization and chemical modification
47
48 on the water-absorption behavior of banana fiberreinforced polyester composites. Journal of
49
50 Applied Polymer Science, 91: 3856-3865.
51
52
53 Laly A. Pothan, Zachariah Oommen and Sabu Thomas. 2003. Dynamic mechanical analysis
54
55 of banana fiber reinforced polyester composites. Composites Science and Technology, 63:
56
57
58
283-293.
59
60 10
1
2
3 Maries Idicula, N.R. Neelakantan, Zachariah Oommen, Kuruvilla Joseph and Sabu Thomas.
4
5 2005. A study of the mechanical properties of randomly oriented short banana and sisal
6
7
hybrid fiber reinforced polyester composites. Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 96: 1699-
8
9
10 1709.
11
12 Thirumalai Kumaran, S., M. Uthayakumar, P. Mathiyazhagan, K. Krishna Kumar and P.
13
14
Muthu Kumar. 2015. Effect of abrasive grain size of the AWJM performance on AA(6351)-
Fo
15
16
17 SiC-B4C hybrid composite. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 766-767: 324-329.
18
rP
19
20
Venkateshwaran N and A. ElayaPerumal. 2013. Hole quality evaluation of natural fiber
21
22 composite using image analysis technique. Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites,
ee
23
24 32: 1188-1197.
25
26
rR
27
28
29
30
ev
31
32
33
34
ie
35
36
37
w
38
39
40
On
41
42
43
44
45
ly
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 11
1
2
3
Table 1 Mechanical property of the composite
4
5 Impact strength Flexural strength Tensile strength
6
7 (ASTM D 256) (ASTM D 790) (ASTM D 638)
8 42.69 KJ/m2 30 MPa 26 MPa
9
10
11
12
Table 2 Experimental results
13
14
Water pressure Traverse speed Standoff distance Surface roughness Kerf angle
Fo
15
16 (bar) (mm/min) (mm) (microns) ()
17 220 20 1 2.707 2.55
18
rP
19 220 20 2 3.415 3.24
20 220 20 3 4.917 4.86
21
22 220 30 1 3.11 1.92
ee
23
220 30 2 3.902 3.51
24
25 220 30 3 4.251 4.23
26
220 40 1 3.201 2.43
rR
27
28 220 40 2 4.4 3.87
29
30 220 40 3 4.801 3.69
ev
31 240 20 1 3.244 1.87

32
33 240 20 2 3.58 2.81
34 240 20 3 4.371 3.62
ie
35
36 240 30 1 3.711 1.42
37 240 30 2 4.892 2.87
w
38
39 240 30 3 4.381 3.89
40 240 40 1 3.597 0.87
On
41
42 240 40 2 4.708 2.48
43
44
240 40 3 5.146 4.32
45 260 20 1 3.814 1.77
ly
46
47 260 20 2 4.298 1.21
48 260 20 3 5.113 3.77
49
50 260 30 1 4.133 1.28
51 260 30 2 4.8 3.22
52
53 260 30 3 5.243 2.57
54 260 40 1 4.2 0.43
55
56 260 40 2 5.197 2.18
57 260 40 3 5.6 3.75
58
59
60
1
2
3
Table 3 Response table for surface roughness
4
5 Response Table
6
7
Machining parameter
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Max-Min
8
9 Water Pressure, bar 0.611 0.520 0.432 0.411
10
11 Traverse speed, mm/min 0.589 0.505 0.469 0.389
12 Standoff distance, mm 0.670 0.486 0.407 0.370
13
14
Fo
15
Table 4 ANOVA for surface roughness
16
17 Degree of Sum of Mean of Contribution
18 Machining parameter F-test
freedom squares square (Q) %
rP
19
20 Water Pressure, bar 2 0.0479 0.0240 64.392 26.58
21
22 Traverse speed, mm/min 2 0.0230 0.0115 30.870 12.75
ee
23 Standoff distance, mm 2 0.1093 0.0546 60.63
146.838
24
25 Error 20 0.0007 0.0000 0.04
26 Total 26 0.0901 100
rR
27
28
29
30
Table 5 Response table for kerf angle
ev
31
32
Response Table
33 Machining parameter
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Max-Min
34
ie
35 Water Pressure, bar

36
0.443 0.530 0.599 0.399
37 Traverse speed, mm/min 0.505 0.513 0.555 0.355
w
38 Standoff distance, mm
39
0.679 0.497 0.397 0.379
40
On
41
42
Table 6 ANOVA for kerf angle
43
Degree of Sum of Mean of Contribution
44 Machining parameter F-test
45 freedom squares square (Q) %
ly
46 Water Pressure, bar 2 0.0366 0.0183 13.902 22.35

47
48 Traverse speed, mm/min 2 0.0044 0.0022 1.668 2.68
49 Standoff distance, mm 2 0.1225 0.0612 74.80
50
46.525
51 Error 20 0.0026 0.0001 0.17
52
Total 26 0.0819 100
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Fo
15
16
17 Figure 1 Initial morphology of garnet particles
18
rP
19
20
21 7
Surface Roughness in m
22
6
ee
23
24 5
25
26 4
rR
27 3
28
29 2
30 1
ev
31
32 0
20 30 40 20 30 40 20 30 40
33
34 1 2 3
ie
35 220 2.707 3.11 3.201 3.415 3.902 4.4 4.917 4.251 4.801
36 240 3.244 3.711 3.597 3.58 4.892 4.708 4.371 4.381 5.146
37
w
38 260 3.814 4.133 4.2 4.298 4.8 5.197 5.113 5.243 5.6
39
40
On
41 Figure 2 Surface roughness

42
43
44
45
ly
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 6
4
Kerf angle in degree

5
5
6 4
7
8 3
9
10 2
11
12 1
13
14 0
20 30 40 20 30 40 20 30 40
Fo
15
16 1 2 3
17 220 2.55 1.92 2.43 3.87 3.51 3.24 4.86 4.23 3.56
18 240 1.87 1.42 0.87 2.48 2.87 2.81 3.62 3.89 4.26
rP
19
20 260 1.77 1.28 0.43 2.18 3.22 1.21 3.77 2.57 3.66
21
22
ee
23 Figure 3 Kerf angle
24
25
26
rR
27
28 Presence of void
29 Gap between fiber and matrix
30
ev
31
32
33
34
ie
35
36
37
w
38
39
40
On
41 (a) (b)
42
43
44
45
ly
46 Strong interfacial bond

47
48
49
50 Crack initiation
51
52
53
54
55
56
57 (c) (d)
58
Figure 4 Cut surface morphology of the composite
59
60

Abrasive Water Jet Machining of Banana Fiber Reinforced Polyester Composite

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Abrasive Water Jet Machining of Banana Fiber Reinforced Polyester Composite

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Journal of Natural Fibers

Performance Evaluation of Abrasive Water Jet Machining on

Journal: Journal of Natural Fibers

Manuscript Type: Original Article

Surface Roughness, Kerf Angle, Abrasive Water Jet Machining, Banana

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jnf Email: ryszard.kozlowski@escorena.net

27 parameters on banana fiber reinforced composite. International Journal of Engineering

41 Studies of Abrasive Water Jet Machining (AWJM) parameters on banana/polyester

31 240 20 1 3.244 1.87

35 Water Pressure, bar

46 Water Pressure, bar 2 0.0366 0.0183 13.902 22.35

41 Figure 2 Surface roughness

Kerf angle in degree

46 Strong interfacial bond

Anda mungkin juga menyukai