Issue 
Manufacturing Rev.
Volume 10, 2023



Article Number  9  
Number of page(s)  12  
DOI  https://doi.org/10.1051/mfreview/2023007  
Published online  29 May 2023 
Research article
Analysis and optimization of mass percentage of zycoprint polymer and abrasives in achieving stability of suspension mixture in abrasive water jet machining
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal 576104, Karnataka, India
^{*} email: vijay.gs@manipal.edu
^{**} email: cr.kamath@manipal.edu
Received:
2
November
2022
Accepted:
26
March
2023
The suspension parameters are vital in the suspensiontype abrasive water jet (AWJ) machining of several engineering materials, more so in difficulttocut materials, because it significantly influences the suspension stability and sedimentation behaviour of the suspension mixture and abrasive particle acceleration into the AWJs. The suspension stability and abrasive particle acceleration of the suspensiontype AWJs are improved by using polymer additives. Hence, it is necessary to study the effect of suspension parameters (abrasive and polymer concentrations) on suspension stability. In this direction, the novel work reported in the paper analyses the stability of suspension by varying the mass percentage of abrasives (garnet and aluminum oxide (Al_{2}O_{3})) (ω_{a}) and mass percentage of the zycoprint polymer (ω_{p}) in water by considering the Taguchi L_{9} Orthogonal array (OA). The linear regression (LR) models for the percentage of suspension volume with garnet (V_{s}^{G}) and the percentage of suspension volume with Al_{2}O_{3} (V_{s}^{A}), are developed. The JAYA algorithm is used to find the optimal combination of the suspension parameters, and its results are in close agreement with the findings from the LR results. The optimum setting of the suspension parameters for both, V_{s}^{G} and V_{s}^{A}, is 3% of ω_{a} and 0.80% of ω_{p}.
Key words: Suspension / abrasives / water / jet / machining / garnets / aluminium / oxide / zycoprint / linear / regression / JAYA
© P. Maurya et al., Published by EDP Sciences 2023
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
1 Introduction
The challenges in machining several engineering materials, especially difficulttocut materials, demand rapid progress in machining technologies. The popularity of Abrasive water jet (AWJ) machining is rising due to its adaptable and flexible manufacturing capabilities [1,2]. In AWJ machining technology, suspension and injection jet methods are possible alternatives. While comparing the two, the first one can function with greater geometric accuracy and less angular error, causing smaller kerf taper ratios [3,4]. Suspensiontype AWJ machining has significant advantages in energy management. These machines are extensively in use due to their versatile nature and ability to cut several metallic and nonmetallic materials in the manufacturing sector. In the suspensiontype AWJ machining technique, a suspension mixture (also called slurry) made of water, abrasives, and a polymer is prepared beforehand and directed through a nozzle at high pressures to form a fine jet. Several studies have been conducted on the suspensiontype AWJ machining of different materials, viz., glass fibrereinforced plastic composites [5,6], discontinuously reinforced Caryota urens fibre polyester composites [7], titanium alloy [8], mild steel [9], etc., as per Taguchi's L_{9} orthogonal array (OA) to save the material cost, reduce the number of experiments and to evaluate the effect of respective process parameters on performance. Ramesha et al. [6] compared the effect of process parameters (namely Abrasive size, standoff distance, abrasive concentration, and traverse rate) on kerf width and surface roughness while using the suspensiontype AWJ technique for machining glass fibrereinforced plastic composites. According to the authors, composite and conventional materials can be machined using a suspensiontype AWJ process with reduced surface roughness and improved material removal. The authors suggested that suspensiontype AWJ machining can produce better machining capabilities than abrasive water jet machining when a set of suspension parameters are optimized. Shetty and Hegde [7] recently attempted machining a discontinuously reinforced Caryota urens fibre polyester composites workpiece using a suspensiontype AWJ process. The authors observed the effect of process parameters (water jet pressure, traverse rate, standoff distance, abrasive flow rate, depth of cut, and abrasive size) on surface roughness using the Taguchibased fuzzy logic model. The researchers claim that it is possible to machine the workpiece even at low water jet pressure (300 bar), resulting in minimum surface roughness. Dumbhare et al. [9] conducted the experimental test sequences as per Taguchi's L_{9} OA to analyze the effect of machining parameters on the performance of ultrahighpressure abrasive slurry jet machining of mild steel. The authors found that standoff distance and traverse rate positively affect the surface roughness and kerf taper angle more than the abrasive flow rate after multiobjective optimization using the response surface methodology. The author recommended exploring the suspension parameters for machining in modern manufacturing industries. It is observed that most of the studies focused on several parameters such as hydraulic, nozzle, machining, and abrasive except suspension. It is found from the literature that the stability of the suspension mixture critically affects the performance of Suspensiontype AWJ machining.
The suspensiontype AWJ process is based on the directpumping system. In this system, the premixed slurry is charged in a pressure vessel in which highpressure water is pumped to pressurize the slurry. The directpumping systems are usually mixed with highviscous additives (polymers) to suspend the storage vessel's abrasive particles and reduce their settling velocity. As per the latest review conducted by Sreekumar et al. [10], the polymers influence the suspension mixture's particles' resistance to sedimentation, which helps in maintaining the stability of the cutting process. The settling of the abrasives and the dispersive behaviour of the mix affect the suspension stability of the suspension mixture. The authors claim that selecting the proper polymer and its required concentration or mass percentage plays a vital role in holding the abrasive particles to avoid their settlement in the suspension mixture. Suspensiontype AWJ machining with polymer additives has several benefits that are wellrecognized by researchers, making it a hotspot of research in recent years. Louis et al. [11] claim that the polymer additives stabilize the suspension mixture in suspensiontype AWJs. Due to these additives, the viscosity of the suspension mixture becomes four times higher than water. During the jet generation process in the suspension nozzle, the increased viscosity shifts the Reynolds number of the flow to lower values leading to an intensified abrasive particle acceleration, enhancing the material removal. Improved abrasive particle acceleration and suspension stability positively influence the cutting potential of abrasive suspension jets. The popular method used by previous researchers [12–14] to check the suspension stability of the suspension mixture is the “sedimentation method”. An increase in polymer concentration at a specified limit enhances the performance of AWJ machining even at an increased distance of the nozzle from the workpiece and low water jet pressure.
The polymers are longchained molecules that impart a viscoelastic fluid behaviour to the suspension mixture. There are various polymer additives during the Suspensiontype AWJ machining of several materials, including SUPERWATER/polyacrylamide (PAM) [15–17], Xanthan [16,18], polyox [19], carboxy methyl cellulose (CMC/cellulose gum) [16,17] and others. Recently, Wang et al. [20] studied the rheological properties of the suspension mixture with PAM and CMC used in suspensiontype AWJs. The authors concluded that the abrasive does not influence the apparent viscosity of the slurry mixture. But the increased suspension stability will be a dominant factor in obtaining goodquality machined surfaces. Hence, the authors recommended studying the suspension stability and optimization of suspension parameters used in the suspensiontype AWJ.
As per the recommendation by Sreekumar et al. [10], selecting a suitable polymer to get a stable suspension mixture is better. The polymers mentioned above have better suspension capability but cannot suspend the abrasive particles for an extended period. Therefore, they cannot be premixed and stored. Hence, exploring the suspension stability of the suspension mixture using a polymer is necessary, which overcomes the abovesaid limitation. In this direction, a stable abrasive water suspension mixture is prepared in the current work using a polymer called ‘zycoprint’ (used by previous researchers, as mentioned in Tab. 1–serial numbers 1 and 8). There are several benefits of zycoprint polymer over other commercially available polymers [21]. It has a longlasting ability to suspend abrasive particles and better suspension stability even at low concentrations (about 1%) to create a stable abrasive suspension mixture for experiments. Using the optimal quantity of the mass percentage of polymer (ω_{p}) to prepare the suspension mixture plays a vital role. Previous researchers have used various polymers with different mass percentages during suspensiontype AWJ machining of several engineering materials, as summarized in Table 1.
The recent study conducted by Maurya et al. [33] focused on the performance analysis of the suspensiontype AWJ machining of acrylonitrile butadiene rubber under roomtemperature and cryogenic conditions. The authors used the zycoprint polymer and garnet abrasives to prepare the suspension mixture during machining, with a mass percentage of 0.8% and 3%, respectively but didn't explore its stability with the specific mass percentages. They used an anchor type agitator with a tangential impeller flow for preparing the suspension mixture. The authors were able to machine acrylonitrile butadiene rubber with goodquality slots using the mass percentages of zycoprint and garnet abrasives (0.8% and 3%, respectively) under cryogenic machining conditions. The experimental work in [33] validates the optimum mass percentages obtained in the present work. Even though relevant studies have been published on suspensiontype AWJ machining by considering the several suspension parameters such as mass percentage of polymer and abrasive, type of abrasive, volume fraction of suspension agent, dispersant and particle size of abrasive and many more, none of them focused on the reason behind selecting the prescribed mass percentage of polymer and abrasive.
The study on the optimum suspension parameters analysis to achieve stability of the suspension mixture before using it in the suspensiontype AWJ machining process has not been reported in the published scientific literature. Therefore, the current work investigates suspension stability by varying the polymer and abrasive particle mass percentages using the sedimentation method. Achieving the suspension stability can help the custom manufacturing scenario in the Industry 4.0 concept. In custom manufacturing, the industries focus on creating small batches of specialized items made up of glass fibrereinforced composites, elastomers, titanium alloy, nickel alloy, and many more for particular customers. Manufacturing of customized components with small lot sizes takes time and is uneconomical to prepare by moulding methods. Hence, several industries and manufacturers are looking for modern manufacturing (green manufacturing) processes, like AWJ machining, to achieve a “lot size of one” in an affordable manner without delay. Hence, knowing the optimum setting of the suspension mixture before using it in AWJ machining of any engineering material, more so in difficulttomachine material, leads to minimizing the premachining time and removing unnecessary hurdles. Providing the machined “lot size of one” at a lower price to the customer at the earliest will become possible and uplift the AWJ machining market in the manufacturing sectors.
The primary objective of the research paper is to prepare different suspension mixtures by varying the zycoprint polymer and abrasive concentrations as per the L_{9} OA of the Taguchi method, preferred for the selected number of decision variables (3^{2}). The second objective is to develop the mathematical equations for the percentage of suspension volume (V_{s}) using linear regression (LR) modelling and validate them with the confirmatory test. The third objective is to use the JAYA algorithm to optimize suspension parameters.
Recommended mass percentage of polymers used by previous researchers during Suspensiontype AWJ machining of several materials.
2 Materials and methods
This section includes the details of polymer, abrasive particles and methodology used in the current work.
2.1 Zycoprint polymer
Zycoprint polymer is a copolymer of an ammonium salt and other ingredients like surfactants and paraffin oils. The zycoprint polymer solution at 1% concentration has a higher viscosity than the commercial polymer solution at 1.5% concentration [21]. The physical and chemical properties of the zycoprint polymer are shown in Table 2. The required volume (V_{polymer}) and mass (mass_{polymer}) of the zycoprint polymer are calculated using equations (1) and (2).
where ω_{p} (%) = mass percentage of the zycoprint polymer, ρ_{polymer} = density of the zycoprint polymer (1.05 g/ml) and mass_{water} = mass of water (99.98 g).
Physical and chemical properties of the zycoprint polymer.
2.2 Abrasive particles
The abrasive particle type, size, and shape significantly influence the suspension mixture [34]. The most commonly used abrasives in AWJ machining are garnet and aluminum oxide (Al_{2}O_{3}). Garnets with mesh size #80 (150 to 300 µm) can cut almost all material with a good surface finish [35]. The garnet and Al_{2}O_{3} with mesh size #80 are selected to prepare the suspension mixture based on the findings from reported literature and the availability of resources. The quantity of the abrasives (garnet and Al_{2}O_{3}) required in the suspension mixture is calculated using equation (3)
where ω_{a} (%) is the mass percentage of abrasive (garnet or Al_{2}O_{3}) and mass of the water (mass_{water}) is 99.98 g.
2.3 Slurry (suspension) preparation
The experiments are conducted to investigate the stability of the suspension mixture at different zycoprint concentrations, with sediments being in static conditions. The suspension mixture is prepared in a 100 ml beaker by adding the required amount of zycoprint to 100 ml of water and stirring it at a low speed of 30 rev/min for 10 min using a cylindrical glass tube type of mixer to get a homogeneous mixture. Then, the required amount of the abrasive (garnet or Al_{2}O_{3}) is added to the mixture and mixed for 3 min. Further, the prepared mixture is kept aside for 2 h to get maximum sedimentation at the bottom of the beaker. Finally, the suspension ability of the different combinations of the mixtures prepared is compared in terms of the percentage of suspension volume (V_{s}) to obtain the best combination.
2.4 Percentage of suspension volume (V_{s})
The suspension mixture's stability is evaluated as the suspension volume (V_{s}) percentage, as shown in equation (4)
where V_{st}_{ }= ‘settlement volume’ (volume of abrasive particles settled at the bottom of the beaker in ‘ml’), V_{c} = ‘clearance volume’ (volume of the mixture at the topmost portion, having negligible abrasives in ‘ml’). V_{t} = ‘total volume’ of the suspension mixture (total volume of the beaker) in ‘ml.’ The settlement and clearance volumes are measured by visual inspection, as shown in Figure 1. In this work, the total volume of the suspension mixture is constant at 100 ml, viz., V_{t} = V_{c}_{ }+ V_{s}_{ }+ V_{st }= 100 ml. Larger the V_{s} (%), lesser is the precipitation of the abrasive particles, the better is the dispersion effect and the slurry suspension stability. Therefore, the focus of the present work is to maximize the V_{s} (%) and attaining the preset limit of 100%.
Fig. 1 Pictorial representation of clearance, suspension, and settlement volumes. 
2.5 Design of experiments (DoE)
The Full factorial experimental design considers numerous runs, which is expensive. Utilizing Taguchi's approach will reduce costs, time, and resource usage. The dominant suspension parameters were chosen based on the literature [17,21–32]. The ranges of suspension parameters selected for the experimentation were tested in the preliminary suspension mixture preparation trials. The experimental runs were constructed using Taguchi's L_{9} OA, which allows for a smaller number of runs needed than the conventional central composite design used along with response surface methodology. Table 3 details the suspension parameters and levels used for the experimental design to prepare a suspension mixture using garnet and Al_{2}O_{3}. The percentage of suspension volume (V_{s}) is considered a response variable.
Details of suspension parameters and their levels used in the suspension preparation.
2.6 Linear regression (LR) modelling
The regression equations, for and , are developed using the LR modelling technique, where = percentage of suspension volume with garnet as abrasive, and = percentage of suspension volume with Al_{2}O_{3} as abrasive [36]. The closeness of the predicted responses to the experimental responses is measured by the ‘adjusted R^{2} (Adj. R^{2})’ and ‘predicted R^{2} (Pred. R^{2})’. The LR model is considered a good one if the Adj. R^{2} is closer to 1, and the difference between the Adj. R^{2} and Pred. R^{2} is less than 0.2.
The LR model developed for (refer to equation (5)) offers a good fit with Adj. R^{2} and Pred. R^{2} of 0.7171 and 0.5295, respectively. The value of Adj. R^{2} is in reasonable agreement with the Pred. R^{2}, as the difference between the two, is less than 0.2. Similarly, the LR model developed for (refer to Eq. (6)) also offers a good fit with high values of Adj. R^{2} and Pred. R^{2} of 0.9267 and 0.8435, respectively. The value of Adj. R^{2} is in reasonable agreement with the Pred. R^{2}, as the difference between the two, is less than 0.2.
The main effect plots obtained during the analysis of developed LR models are used to analyze the effect of suspension parameters (ω_{p} and ω_{a}) on the mean of and and to determine the optimal levels of the suspension parameters corresponding to the maximum suspension volumes ( and ). The effect of the significant interaction term between the ω_{p} and ω_{a} on the and is explored using contour plots. The software Minitab (2019Minitab® 19.1.1 (64bit)) is used to generate Taguchi's L_{9} OA and develop the LR model.
2.7 Singleobjective optimization
In the problem under consideration, each response equation (Eqs. (5) and (6)) is considered the objective function of the optimization problem. The objective is to maximize the percentage of suspension volume. This case is a singleobjective optimization problem (SOOP), as each objective function (Eqs. (5) and (6)) is to be optimized individually. The popular ‘JAYA algorithm’ is used for optimizing and due to its simple concept and better performance than other advanced metaheuristic algorithms [37]. The pseudocode of the JAYA algorithm is presented below (see page 6). The variables in bold represent matrices.
N.B. The variables in bold represent matrices.
The JAYA algorithm is implemented through the customized MATLAB (R2020a) programs on an Intel i5 2.11 GHz processor and 8GB RAM laptop. The JAYA algorithm is run for six different combinations of population size (PS) and the number of generations (MaxGen), as shown in Table 4.
Inputs: pop, nVar, MaxGen  

pop = size of population  
nVar = number of design variables  
L = [L_{j}]; j = 1 to nVar;  [Row matrix with lower limits of variables]  
U = [U_{j}]; j = 1 to nVar;  [Row matrix with upper limits of variables]  
MaxGen = Maximum number of generations or iterations: termination criteria  
Outputs: f_{opt}, x_{opt}  
f_{opt} = Optimum cost  
x_{opt} = Optimum solution  
Step 1: Create the initial population matrix x = [x_{i}], i = 1 to pop  
Step 2: Find the fitness f = [ f_{i}] such that f_{i} = φ (x_{i})  
Step 3: Initialize gen = 1  
while (gen < MaxGen)  
a.  Find the best and the worst solution  
f_{best} = max ( f)  
f_{worst} = max ( f)  
b.  Pick the best solution x_{best} = x_{i} corresponding to best fitness f_{best}  
Pick the worst solution x_{worst} = x_{i} corresponding to worst fitness f_{worst}  
c.  Update the population x as xx by using the equation  
xx_{i} = x_{i} + r_{1} * (x_{best} −  x_{i} ) – r_{2 }* (x_{worst} −  x_{i} )  
d.  Modify the solutions in the updated population such that they satisfy the limits L and U  
xn = modify (xx)  
e.  Find the fitness fn of the modified population xn  
fn = [ fn_{i}] such that fn_{i} = φ (xn_{i})  
f.  Choose the best solution candidates from x and xn  
if (fn_{i} > f_{i})  
f_{i} = fn_{i}  
x_{i} = xn_{i} corresponding to fn_{i}  
end if  
g.  Choose the best cost f_{opt} from f  
f_{opt} = max ( f)  
x_{opt} = x_{i} of x corresponding to f_{opt}  
h.  gen = gen + 1  
end while  
Step 4:  print f_{opt} , x_{opt} 
Selected conditions for the JAYA algorithm.
3 Results and discussion
The experiments are conducted as per L_{9} OA. Table 5 gives the details of all nine combinations of suspension parameters and the corresponding values of the response variables determined by experimentation.
The analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the LR model is used to check the linear and interaction effects of the polymer and the abrasive concentrations on the percentage of suspension volume ( and ). The ANOVA test of the LR model is conducted at a 95% confidence interval. Therefore, the variables with probability value (pvalue) ≤0.05 are considered significant.
The suspension parameters and their corresponding responses for nine experimental runs.
3.1 LR results for the percentage of suspension volume () with Garnet as the abrasive
From the LR results for the percentage of suspension volume () with Garnet as abrasive (refer to Tab. 6), it could be observed that 77.98% of the variation in the response variable is caused by the mass percentage of abrasive (garnet) (ω_{a}). Hence, the contribution of ω_{a} on the regression model is more than the mass percentage of the polymer (ω_{p}). The pvalue of the linear term ω_{a} (0.003) is less than 0.05. Hence, the mass percentage of abrasive (Garnet) (ω_{a}) proves significant. Figure 2 shows the main effect plot (a) and contour plot (b) for . The ω_{p} is considered in the LR model because it is an individual term and main suspension parameter, even though it is insignificant. The individual terms (ω_{p} and ω_{a}) are used for the practical usage of the equation [38,39]. From the main effect plot (refer to Fig. 2a), it is observed that the increase in ω_{p} from 0.7 to 0.8% increases the average by about 1%. The maximum percentage of suspension volume () is observed from the main effect plot and contour plot (refer to Fig. 2b) at 0.80% of ω_{p} and 3% of ω_{a}.
ANOVA results of the LR model for the percentage of suspension volume and .
Fig. 2 (a) Main effects and (b) contour plots for . 
3.2 LR results for the percentage of suspension volume () with Al_{2}O_{3} as the abrasive
From the LR results for the percentage of suspension volume () with Al_{2}O_{3} as abrasive (refer to Tab. 6), it could be observed that the linear terms cause 83.88% of the variation in the response compared to the 11.55% significance exhibited by the squared term. Hence, the contribution of linear terms to the response variable is more. But the pvalue of the linear terms ω_{a} (0.314) is greater than 0.05. Hence, the mass percentage of abrasive (Al_{2}O_{3}) (ω_{a}) proves insignificant. The pvalue of the linear terms ω_{p} (0.014) is less than 0.05. Hence, the mass percentage of polymer (ω_{p}) proves to be significant. In square terms, the pvalue of ω_{p} × ω_{p} is 0.016 (significant), even though their percentage of contribution is only 11.55%. Hence, only a large change in the mass percentage of polymer (ω_{p}) brings a difference in the response, which is evident from the medium significance percentage (11.55%) of the square term of ω_{p}. Figure 3 shows the main effect plot (a) and contour plot (b) for . The ω_{a} is considered in the LR model because it plays a major role in the suspension preparation, even though it is insignificant. It can be seen from the main effect plot (refer to Fig. 3a) and contour plot (refer to Fig. 3b) between the mass percentage of Garnet (ω_{a}, %) and mass percentage of polymer (ω_{p}, %) that the maximum percentage of suspension volume () is observed at 3% of ω_{a} and 0.80% of ω_{p}.
Fig. 3 (a) Main effects and (b) Contour plots for . 
3.3 Results of the developed linear regression (LR) models for the percentage of suspension volume and
The developed LR model for provides a good fit with Adj. R^{2} and Pred. R^{2} of 0.7171 and 0.5295, respectively. The average percentage error of prediction between 9 experimental and predicted values is 0.046%. It is observed from equation (5) that the positive coefficient of the mass percentage of polymer (ω_{p}) of the developed LR model indicate that as its value increase, the mean of the percentage of suspension volume () also tends to increase. But at the same time, the negative coefficient of the mass percentage of abrasive (Garnet) (ω_{a}) indicate that as its value increase, the mean of the percentage of suspension volume () tends to decrease.
The developed LR model for also offers a good fit with high values of Adj. R^{2} and Pred. R^{2} of 0.9267 and 0.8435, respectively. The average percentage error of prediction between 9 experimental and predicted values is 0.394%. It is observed from equation (6) that the positive coefficient of the mass percentage of polymer (ω_{p}) of the developed LR model indicate that as its value increase, the mean of the percentage of suspension volume () also tends to increase. But at the same time, the negative coefficient of the mass percentage of abrasive (Al_{2}O_{3}) (ω_{a}) and square term of mass percentage of polymer (ω_{p}) indicate that as their values increase, the mean of the percentage of suspension volume () tends to decrease.
The average percentage of errors in both cases, and , are less than 5%. It indicates a close match of experimental and predicted values percentage of suspension volume [40,41]. Hence, it suggests that the developed LR models are acceptable for predicting the response variables ( and ).
3.4 Confirmation test results
The developed LR models (Eqs. (5) and (6)) are validated with further experiments, as shown in Table 7. The values of suspension parameters selected for the confirmatory test are in the range of levels mentioned in Table 3. The percentage error (% error) for each confirmatory test is calculated using equation (7) [42], and their results are depicted in Table 7. The confirmation experimental test values of and are in agreement with the calculated model values, as the mean % error for Garnet and Al_{2}O_{3} are 1.293 and 0.019, respectively.
Validation experiments for the percentage of suspension volume ( and ).
3.5 Results of singleobjective optimization
Table 8 demonstrates the optimum suspension parameters and their corresponding optimum response variables obtained using the JAYA algorithm after considering the conditions mentioned in Table 4. The combined optimum suspension parameters obtained from the average JAYA algorithm results of all condition numbers and LR model results are incorporated in Table 9. The optimization results of the JAYA algorithm are close to the best parameter combinations (ω_{p} = 0.80 and ω_{a} = 3 for both garnet and Al_{2}O_{3}), evident from the contour plots in Figures 2b and 3b.
Performance of the JAYA algorithm.
Comparison between the optimum combination of suspension parameters obtained using the JAYA algorithm and LR model.
4 Conclusions
The suspension mixture's stability is vital in the Suspensiontype AWJ machining process. The mass percentage of polymer and abrasives are critical parameters of the suspension mixture. The settling of abrasive particles and the dispersive behaviour of the mix affect the suspension stability of the suspension mixture. The larger the percentage of suspension volume (V_{s} (%)) lesser is the precipitation of the abrasive particles, the better is the dispersion effect and slurry suspension stability. Hence, it is crucial to analyze the suspension stability of the suspension mixture using a zycoprint polymer which has a longlasting ability to suspend abrasive particles. In this vein, the current research work is attempted. The essential highlights of the novel work include finding the optimal combination of the suspension mixture composition and obtaining the mixture's stability are discussed here.
It is found from the experimental runs that in the case of Garnet, the maximum is observed at (3% of ω_{a}, 0.70% of ω_{p}) and (3% of ω_{a}, 0.80% of ω_{p}). Whereas, in the case of Al_{2}O_{3}, the maximum is observed at (3% of ω_{a}, 0.80% of ω_{p}) and (7% of ω_{a}, 0.80% of ω_{p}). The statistical results obtained from the ANOVA of the developed LR models show that the pvalues of the models are significant for garnet and Al_{2}O_{3}. The developed LR models and confirmatory test are in agreement with the experimental results, as the mean % errors for garnet and Al_{2}O_{3} are 1.293 and 0.019, respectively. The optimum value of the suspension parameter ω_{a} is towards the lower level (i.e., Level_1 (3%)), and ω_{p} is towards the higher level (i.e., Level_3 (0.80%)) to achieve maximum suspension volumes ( = 99.5% and = 100%) obtained from the main effect plots of the LR models. These results are in close agreement with the JAYA algorithm results. The study recommended that achieving the maximum stability of the suspension mixture is possible by considering the suggested settings of the suspension parameters while using it in the Suspensiontype AWJ machining process.
In applying the Industry 4.0 features, the manufacturing sectors can benefit from the suggested optimum suspension parameters obtained by the current work in the suspensiontype AWJ process to cut several difficulttomachine materials (such as glass fibrereinforced composites, titanium alloy, nickel alloy, polymers, etc.). Further investigation is recommended by considering the process parameters (such as hydraulic, nozzle, machining, abrasive, and work material) along with the stated optimal suspension parameters to study the fluid dynamics of the suspensiontype AWJs. Exploring the abrasive particle settlement velocity for different abrasives and their respective concentrations is also recommended for future work so that it can be premixed and stored for an extended duration.
Acknowledgments
The authors of this study gratefully acknowledge the support provided by the Manipal Academy of Higher Education.
References
 D. Ponnamma, C. Jose Chirayil, K.K. Sadasivuni, L. Somasekharan, S. Yaragalla, J. Abraham, S. Thomas, Special Purpose Elastomers: Synthesis, StructureProperty Relationship, Compounding, Processing and Applications, in Advances in Elastomers 1: Advanced structured materials, 1st edn. (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2013), p. 47–82 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 P. Thamizhvalavan, S. Arivazhagan, N. Yuvaraj, B. Ramesh, Machinability study of abrasive aqua jet parameters on hybrid metal matrix composite, Mater. Manuf. Process. 34 (2019) 321–344 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 M. Putz, M. Dix, F. Morczinek, M. Dittrich, Suspension technology for abrasive waterjet (AWJ) cutting of ceramics, Proc. CIRP (2018) 367–370 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 F. Morczinek, M. Putz, M. Dix, Comparison of abrasive water jet technologies in terms of performance and kerf geometry accuracy for cutting ceramics, Int. J. Sustain. Manuf. 4 (2020) 201–215 [Google Scholar]
 D.R. Tripathi, K.H. Vachhani, S. Kumari, A.K. Dinbandhu, Experimental investigation on material removal rate during abrasive water jet machining of GFRP composites, Mater. Today: Proc. (2019) 1389–1392 [Google Scholar]
 K. Ramesha, N. Santhosh, K. Kiran, N. Manjunath, H. Naresh, Effect of the process parameters on machining of GFRP composites for different conditions of abrasive water suspension jet machining, Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 44 (2019) 7933–7943 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 R. Shetty, A. Hegde, Taguchi based fuzzy logic model for optimization and prediction of surface roughness during AWJM of DRCUFP composites, Manufactur. Rev. 9 (2022) 2 [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
 W. Sami Abushanab, E.B. Moustafa, M. Harish, S. Shanmugan, A.H. Elsheikh, Experimental investigation on surface characteristics of Ti6Al4V alloy during abrasive water jet machining process, Alexandria Eng. J. 61 (2022) 7529–7539 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 P.A. Dumbhare, S. Dubey, Y.V. Deshpande, A.B. Andhare, P.S. Barve, P.A. Dumbhare, S. Dubey, Y.V. Deshpande, A.B. Andhare, P.S. Barve, Modelling and multiobjective optimization of surface roughness and kerf taper angle in abrasive water jet machining of steel, J. Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. 40 (2018) 259 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 M. Sreekumar, S. Purushothaman, M.S. Srinivas, J.K. Katiyar, M.R. Sankar, A review of additives in abrasive water jet machining and their performance, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. J: J. Eng. Tribol. (2022) in Press [Google Scholar]
 H. Louis, F. Pude, C. Von Rad, R. Versemann, Abrasive water suspension jet technology fundamentals, application and developments, Weld World. 51 (2007) 11–16 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 W.J. Tseng, K.H. Teng, The effect of surfactant adsorption on sedimentation behaviours of Al_{2}O_{3}toluene suspensions, Mater. Sci. Eng. A. 318 (2001) 102–110 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Y. P. Liao, C.Y. Wang, Y. N. Hu, Y. X. Song, The slurry for glass polishing by micro abrasive suspension jets, Adv. Mater. Res. 69–70 (2009) 322–327 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Z. Yang, Y. Zhen, Y. Tao, Study on the characteristics of grinding fluid in extrusion grinding machining, In J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2029 (2021) 012054 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 J. Borkowski, P. Borkowski, Criteria of effective materials cutting with suspension abrasivewater jet, Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng. 9 (2009) 5–14 [Google Scholar]
 A. Gupta, Performance optimization of abrasive fluid jet for completion and stimulation of oil and gas wells, J. Energy Resour. Technol. 134 (2012) 021001 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 X. Wang, D. Zhou, G. Zhu, C. Guo, Rheological properties of two high polymers suspended in an abrasive slurry jet, EPoly. 21 (2021) 186–193 [Google Scholar]
 N. Dixit, V. Sharma, P. Kumar, Development and characterization of Xanthan gumbased abrasive media and performance analysis using abrasive flow machining, J. Manuf. Process. 67 (2021) 101–115 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 O. Kozhus, G. Barsukov, The research of the agglomeration process during the formation of an abrasivepolymer compound for waterjet cutting in a fluidized bed installation, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 117 (2021) 2511–2518 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 X. Wang, D. Zhou, G. Zhu, C. Guo, Rheological properties of two high polymers suspended in an abrasive slurry jet, EPolymers 21 (2021) 186–193 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 D. Anjaiah, A.M. Chincholkar, Cutting of glass using low pressure abrasive water suspension jet with the addition of zycoprint polymer, in 19th International Conference Water Jet (ICWJ) (2008), p. 105–119 [Google Scholar]
 C.Y. Wang, P.X. Yang, J.M. Fan, Y.X. Song, Effect of slurry and nozzle on hole machining of Glass by micro abrasive suspension jets, Key Eng. Mater. 404 (2009) 177–183 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 D. Patel, P. Tandon, Experimental investigations of gelatinenabled abrasive water slurry jet machining, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 89 (2017) 1193–1208 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 A.K. Amar, P. Tandon, Investigation of gelatin enabled abrasive water slurry jet machining (AWSJM), CIRP J. Manuf. Sci. Technol. 33 (2021) 1–14 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 D. Feng, L. Shi, C. Guo, F. Wang, Y. Chen, Numerical and experimental study on the flow characteristics of abrasive slurry jet with polymer additives, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 95 (2017) 3289–3299 [Google Scholar]
 C. Qiang, F. Wang, C. Guo, Study on impact stress of abrasive slurry jet in cutting stainless steel, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 100 (2019) 297–309 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 C. Qiang, L. Li, X. Wang, C. Guo, Study on the mechanism for sparks in cutting metal with abrasive suspension water jet, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 106 (2020) 417–430 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 D. Deepak, A. Devineni, Effect of process parameters on the surface roughness produced during machining of ceramics using AWSJ: An experimental investigation by Taguchi signal to noise ratio, in WJTAIMCA Conference and Expo, New Orleans, Louisiana (2017) [Google Scholar]
 E. Van Wijk, D.F. James, M. Papini, J.K. Spelt, Micromachining with abrasive slurryJets: effects of dissolved polymer concentration and nozzle design, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 102 (2019) 317–331 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 F. Wang, Q. Xu, D. Feng, C. Guo, Experiment study on performance of abrasive slurry jet with or without high polymer in stainless steel machining, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 95 (2018) 2449–2456 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 K. Kowsari, J. Schwartzentruber, J.K. Spelt, M. Papini, Erosive smoothing of abrasive slurryjet micromachined channels in Glass, PMMA, and sintered ceramics: experiments and roughness model, Precis. Eng. 49 (2017) 332–343 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 K. Kowsari, H. Nouraei, D.F. James, J.K. Spelt, M. Papini, Abrasive slurry jet micromachining of holes in brittle and ductile materials, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 214 (2014) 1909–1920 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 P. Maurya, G.S. Vijay, C.K. Raghavendra, Investigation on performance and kerf characteristics during cryogenicassisted suspensiontype abrasive water jet machining of acrylonitrile butadiene rubber, J. Comp. Sci. 16 (2022) 397 [Google Scholar]
 R. Melentiev, F. Fang, Recent advances and challenges of abrasive jet machining, CIRP J. Manuf. Sci. Technol. 22 (2018) 1–20 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 J. Folkes, Waterjet − an innovative tool for manufacturing, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 209 (2009) 6181–6189 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 D. Hedeker, Multilevel models for ordinal and nominal variables, in Handbook of Multilevel Analysis, 1st edn. (Springer, New York, 2008) [Google Scholar]
 R.V. Rao, Jaya: An Advanced Optimization Algorithm and Its Engineering Applications, 1st edn. (Springer, Cham: Cham, Switzerland, 2019) [Google Scholar]
 U. Caydas, A. Hascalik, A study on surface roughness in abrasive waterjet machining process using artificial neural networks and regression analysis method, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 202 (2008) 574–582 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 J. Valicek, S. Hloch, D. Kozak, Surface geometric parameters proposal for the advanced control of abrasive waterjet technology, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 41 (2009) 323–328 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 V.D.P. Rao, M. Mrudula, V.N. Geethika, Multiobjective optimization of parameters in abrasive water jet machining of carbonglass fibrereinforced hybrid composites, J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. D. 100 (2019) 55–66 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 U. Aich, S. Banerjee, A. Bandyopadhyay, P.K. Das, Abrasive water jet cutting of borosilicate glass, Proc. Mater. Sci. 6 (2014) 775–785 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 S. Prabhu, M. Uma, B.K. Vinayagam, Surface roughness prediction using Taguchifuzzy logicneural network analysis for CNT nanofluids based grinding process, Neural Comput. Appl. 26 (2015) 41–55 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Cite this article as: Preeti Maurya, Vijay G. S., Raghavendra Kamath C., Analysis and optimization of mass percentage of zycoprint polymer and abrasives in achieving stability of suspension mixture in abrasive water jet machining, Manufacturing Rev. 10, 9 (2023)
All Tables
Recommended mass percentage of polymers used by previous researchers during Suspensiontype AWJ machining of several materials.
Details of suspension parameters and their levels used in the suspension preparation.
The suspension parameters and their corresponding responses for nine experimental runs.
Comparison between the optimum combination of suspension parameters obtained using the JAYA algorithm and LR model.
All Figures
Fig. 1 Pictorial representation of clearance, suspension, and settlement volumes. 

In the text 
Fig. 2 (a) Main effects and (b) contour plots for . 

In the text 
Fig. 3 (a) Main effects and (b) Contour plots for . 

In the text 
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (fulltext article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 4896 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.