2009
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2008.09.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An investigation on kerf characteristics in abrasive waterjet cutting of layered composites

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

6
67
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
2
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 152 publications
(73 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
6
67
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Since the effects of pressure and cutting height on the kerf have not been evaluated to be statistically meaningful within the experimental conditions, abrasive consumption and cutting speed have been determined as the most effective factors for the kerf. In other studies, where different materials were cut, it is observed that the kerf decreases, when the abrasive consumption increases [12][13][14] and the kerf increases when cutting speed and cutting height increase [3,[13][14][15][16][17].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 84%
“…Since the effects of pressure and cutting height on the kerf have not been evaluated to be statistically meaningful within the experimental conditions, abrasive consumption and cutting speed have been determined as the most effective factors for the kerf. In other studies, where different materials were cut, it is observed that the kerf decreases, when the abrasive consumption increases [12][13][14] and the kerf increases when cutting speed and cutting height increase [3,[13][14][15][16][17].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 84%
“…More work is required to fully understand the influence of the important process parameters on surface roughness. Indeed, some techniques have been proposed for improving the surface finish and kerf quality [22,23]. The mechanism and rate of material removal during AWJC depends on the range of process parameters and the type of abrasive particles.…”
Section: Parameters and Processmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The difference between the obtained response and the expected response is the response error, which is a nonlinear function related to entries into the system, controlled parameters and uncontrollable factors (noises) and interactions occurring [5][6] Errors that occur from one piece to another, although they are executed under the same conditions can be mitigated and managed to a minimum, thus optimizing the entire technological process.…”
Section: Optimizing Hydroabrasive Jet Processing By Reducing the Varimentioning
confidence: 99%