Experimental Mechanics

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 159–169 | Cite as

Visualization of the abrasive-waterjet cutting process

  • Mohamed Hashish


Cutting with abrasive waterjets was visualized in three types of materials: Lexan, Lucite and glass. Movie cameras were used at speeds of 64 and 1000 frames/s to record sequences of the jet penetration in these materials. It was found that the cutting process consists of two basic modes of erosion. The first, known as the cutting-wear mode, occurs at relatively shallow angles of impact. This mode results in a steady-state jet-solid interface. The other mode, the deformation-wear mode, occurs at large angles of impact and results in an unsteady penetration zone. The relative contribution of each of these two modes or mechanisms to material removal depends on the process parameters. The cutting process is cyclic in nature when the deformation-wear mechanism is partially or totally contributing to cutting. Qualitative and quantitative results of these visualization experiments suggest a mechanistic model for the penetration process. The results of this work may also be expanded to explain other ‘stream-like’ cutting-tool processes, such as laser and flame cutting.


Mechanical Engineer Fluid Dynamics Mechanistic Model Material Removal Quantitative Result 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

List of Symbols


jet diameter


mixing-tube diameter


waterjet-orifice diameter


camera speed in frames per second


depth of cut

\(\dot h\)

penetration rate


depth of cut due to cutting wear


depth of cut due to deformation wear


depth of uncut portion due to jet deflection at the exit

\(\dot m\)

particle-mass-flow rate


number of passes


number of frames over which depthh is achieved


waterjet pressure


critical threshold pressure




traverse rate


entry length after which jet reaches maximum depth


angle between jet-velocity vector and traversevelocity vector


jet-deflection angle at entry edge


interface angle at depthh f


initial angle of jet-solid interface


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Hashish, M., “Cutting with Abrasive-Waterjets,”Mech. Eng.,106 (3),60 (March 1984).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hashish, M., “Modelling Study of Abrasive Jet Metal Cutting,” Phase I Report to National Science Foundation under Grant MEA-81-14500, Flow Res. Rep. No. 229 (March 1982).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hashish, M., “A Modelling Study of Metal Cutting with Abrasive-Waterjets,”J. Eng. Mat. Tech., ASME Trans.,106 (1),88–100 (Jan. 1984).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hashish, M., “On the Modelling of Abrasive-Waterjet Cutting,” Proc. 7th Int. Jet Cutting Symp., BHRA, 249–265 (1984).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bitter, J.G.A., “A Study of Erosion Phenomena—Part II,”Wear,6,169–190 (1963).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Treatise on Materials Science and Technology,”ed. C. Preece,Erosion, 16,Academic Press,New York,69-126 (1979).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Finnie, I., “The Mechanism of Erosion of Ductile Metals,” Proc. 3rd Nat. Cong. of Appl. Mech., ASME, 527–532 (1958).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Finnie, I., “Erosion of Surface by Solid Particles,”Wear,3,87–103 (1960).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hashish, M., “Abrasive-Waterjet Cutting Studies,” Proc. 11th Conf. on Production Research and Technology, NSF (May 1984).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hashish, M., “Aspects of Abrasive-Waterjet (AWJ) Performance Optimization,” Proc. 8th Int. Symp. on Jet Cutting Technology, BHRA (Sept. 1986).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Smeltzer, G.E., Gulden, M.E. andCompton, W.A., “Mechanisms of Metal Removal by Impacting Dust Particles,”J. Basic Eng., ASME Trans.,92,639–654 (1970).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc. 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohamed Hashish
    • 1
  1. 1.Flow Research, Inc.Kent

Personalised recommendations