Doğaltaşların Aşındırıcılı Sujeti ile İleri Açılı ve Çok Geçişli Kesiminde Kerf Geometrisinin Gelişimi: Kerf Genişliği ve Kerf Açısı Üzerine Deneysel Bulgular

Öz

Bu çalışmada, doğal taşların aşındırıcılı su jeti (ASJ) ile işlenmesinde çok geçişli ve ileri açılı kesim stratejilerinin kerf geometrisi üzerindeki etkileri deneysel olarak araştırılmıştır. Beyaz mermer (R1), bej mermer (R2), traverten (R3), oniks (R4), bazalt (R5) ve iki farklı tüf (R6 ve R7) olmak üzere yedi kayaç üzerinde toplam 98 kesme deneyi gerçekleştirilmiştir. Çok geçişli deneylerde geçiş sayısının yanı sıra aşındırıcı besleme miktarı ve çalışma basıncı incelenmiş; ileri açılı kesimlerde jet temas açısı 75°–90° arasında değiştirilmiştir. Kesme genişliği ve kerf açısı temel performans göstergeleri olarak değerlendirilmiş, ayrıca bu parametrelerle kayaçların fiziksel ve mekanik özellikleri arasındaki ilişkiler Spearman sıra korelasyon analiziyle araştırılmıştır. Çok geçişli kesim, kayaçların çoğunda kesme genişliğini %0,7–20,3 oranında azaltmıştır. En belirgin kerf açısı iyileşmesi R1’de elde edilmiş; değer tek geçişte 1,53° iken dört geçişte 0,51°’ye düşerek yaklaşık %67 azalmıştır. Aşındırıcı besleme miktarının artırılması çoğu kayaçta kesme genişliğini %2–24 artırırken, çalışma basıncındaki artış kayaç türüne bağlı olarak %26’ya varan azalmalar veya %28’e ulaşan artışlar oluşturmuştur. İleri açılı kesimde jet temas açısının kesme genişliğinden çok kerf açısı üzerinde etkili olduğu ve bazı kayaçlarda %35–65 azalma sağladığı belirlenmiştir. Korelasyon sonuçları, çok geçişli kesimde ortalama kerf açısının mineral tane yoğunluğuyla güçlü pozitif ilişki gösterdiğini ortaya koymuştur. İleri açılı kesimde ortalama kerf açısı su emme ve gözeneklilik göstergeleriyle güçlü negatif, P-dalga hızıyla güçlü pozitif ilişkiler sergilemiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Aşındırıcılı sujeti
• doğaltaş
• performans iyileştirme
• kerf genişliği
• kerf açısı

Destekleyen Kurum

Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışma özgün bir araştırma olup başka bir dergide veya yayın organında değerlendirilmek üzere eş zamanlı olarak sunulmamıştır. Çalışmada elde edilen sonuçlar açık, dürüst ve şeffaf bir şekilde sunulmuş; herhangi bir veri uydurma, veri tahrifatı veya uygunsuz veri manipülasyonu yapılmamıştır.

Teşekkür

Yazarlar, çalışmanın yürütülmesine yönelik FDK-2022-10526 numaralı proje kapsamında sağladığı finansal destekten dolayı Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri Koordinasyon Birimi'ne içten teşekkürlerini sunar. Ayrıca, deneysel çalışmalarda kullanılan doğal taş örneklerinin temin edilmesine yönelik katkılarından dolayı Bursa'da faaliyet gösteren Çiftyıldız Mermer Grubu'na teşekkürlerini sunarlar.

Evolution of Kerf Geometry in Forward-Angling and Multi-Pass Abrasive Waterjet Cutting of Natural Stones: Experimental Insights into Kerf width and Kerf angle

Öz

In this study, effects of multi-pass and forward-angled abrasive waterjet (AWJ) cutting strategies on the kerf geometry of natural stones were investigated. Overall, 98 cutting experiments were conducted on seven rock types. In the multi-pass experiments, the number of passes, abrasive flow rate, and water pressure were examined, whereas the jet impact angle was varied between 75° and 90° in forward-angled cutting. Kerf width and kerf taper angle were evaluated as performance indicators, and their relationships with physical and mechanical rock properties were investigated using Spearman’s rank correlation. Multi-pass cutting reduced kerf width by 0.7–20.3% in most rocks. The greatest improvement in kerf taper angle was obtained for R1, decreasing by approximately 67%, from 1.53° after one pass to 0.51° after four passes. Increasing the abrasive flow rate increased kerf width by 2–24% in most rocks, while increasing water pressure produced rock-dependent reductions of up to 26% or increases of up to 28%. In forward-angled cutting, the jet impact angle affected kerf taper angle more strongly than kerf width and provided reductions of 35–65% in some rocks. The mean kerf taper angle was positively associated with mineral grain density in multi-pass cutting. In forward-angled cutting, it exhibited strong negative correlations with water-absorption and pore-structure indicators and a strong positive correlation with P-wave velocity.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Abrasive waterjet
• natural stone
• performance improvement
• kerf width
• kerf taper angle

Kaynakça

1. Aydin G, Karakurt I, Aydiner K. Prediction of cut depth of the granitic rocks machined by abrasive waterjet (AWJ). Rock Mech Rock Eng 2013; 46 (5): 1223-1235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-012-0307-1
2. Pawar JP, Vidhate SU, Khalkar YM. Improving the quality characteristics of abrasive water jet machining of marble material using multi-objective artificial bee colony algorithm. J Comput Des Eng 2018; 5: 319–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcde.2017.12.002
3. Wang H, Yuan R, Zhang X, Zai P, Deng J. Research progress in abrasive water jet processing technology. Micromachines 2023; 14: 1526. https://doi.org/10.3390/mi14081526
4. Wang J, Guo DM. The cutting performance in multipass abrasive waterjet machining of industrial ceramics. J Mater Process Technol 2003; 133: 371–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-0136(02)01125-1
5. Hashish M. Precision cutting of thick materials with AWJ. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Water Jetting; 7–9 September 2004; Mainz, Germany, pp. 33–45.
6. Wang J, Zhong Y. Enhancing the depth of cut in abrasive waterjet cutting of alumina ceramics by using multipass cutting with nozzle oscillation. Mach Sci Technol 2009; 13(1): 76–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/10910340902776085
7. Lemma E, Deam R, Chen L. Maximum depth of cut and mechanics of erosion in AWJ oscillation cutting of ductile materials. J Mater Process Technol 2005; 160: 188–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2004.06.010
8. Wang J. Predictive depth of jet penetration models for abrasive waterjet cutting of alumina ceramics. Int J Mech Sci 2007; 49: 306–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2006.09.005

9. Shanmugam DK, Wang J, Liu H. Minimisation of kerf tapers in abrasive waterjet machining of alumina ceramics using a compensation technique. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 2008; 48: 1527–1534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2008.07.001
10. Wang J. Depth of cut models for multipass abrasive waterjet cutting of alumina ceramics with nozzle oscillation. Front Mech Eng 2010; 5(1): 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11465-009-0082-1
11. Dekster L, Karkalos EN, Obratanski KP. et al. Evaluation of the machinability of Ti-6Al-4V titanium alloy by AWJM using a multipass strategy. Appl Sci 2023; 13: 3774. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13063774
12. Karakurt I, Aydin G, Yıldırım F, Kaya S. Aşındırıcı Sujeti Kesme Performansının İyileştirilmesine Yönelik Geliştirilen Yöntemler. Türkiye 26. Uluslararası Madencilik Kongresi ve Sergisi; 16-19 Nisan 2019; Antalya, Türkiye, v.1: pp. 1340-1345.
13. Khanna R, Gupta R, Gupta,V. Measuring material removal rate of marble by using abrasive water jet machining. IOSR J Mech Civ Eng 2011; 45–49.
14. Shah RV, Patel DM. A study of abrasive water jet machining process on granite material. Int J Eng Res Appl 2012; 2(4): 2031–2033.
15. Karakurt I, Aydin G, Aydiner K. An investigation on the kerf width in abrasive waterjet cutting of granitic rocks. Arab J Geosci 2014; 7(7): 2923–2932. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-013-0984-4
16. Mlynarczuk M, Skiba M, Sitek L, Hlavac P, Hlavacek P, Kozusnikova A. The research into the quality of rock surfaces obtained by abrasive water jet cutting. Arch Min Sci 2014; 59(4): 925–940. https://doi.org/10.2478/amsc-2014-0064
17. Abdullah R, Mahrous A, Barakat A. Surface quality of marble machined by abrasive waterjet. Cogent Eng 2016; 3(1): 1178626. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2016.1178626
18. Oh TM, Cho GC. Rock cutting depth model based on kinetic energy of abrasive waterjet. Rock Mech Rock Eng 2016; 49(3): 1059–1072. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-015-0778-y
19. Oh T, Joo G, Cha Y, Cho G. Effect of garnet characteristics on abrasive waterjet cutting of hard granite rock. Adv Civ Eng 2019; 5732649. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/5732649
20. De Abreu E, Lima CE, Lebron R. et al. Study of influence of traverse speed and abrasive mass flowrate in abrasive water jet machining of gemstones. J Adv Manuf Technol 2016; 83: 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-7529-9
21. Alsoufi M, Suker D, Alhazmi M, Azam S. Influence of abrasive waterjet machining parameters on the surface texture quality of Carrara marble. J Surf Eng Mater Adv Technol 2017; 7: 25–37. https://doi.org/10.4236/jsemat.2017.72003
22. Zhao J, Zhang G, Xu Y. et al. Mechanism and effect of jet parameters on particle waterjet rock breaking. Powder Technol 2017; 313: 231–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2017.03.026
23. Aydin G, Kaya S, Karakurt I. Utilization of solid-cutting waste of granite as an alternative abrasive in abrasive waterjet cutting of marble. J Clean Pro 2017; 159: 241–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.173
24. Jiang H, Liu Z, Gao K. Numerical simulation on rock fragmentation by discontinuous water-jet using coupled SPH/FEA method. Powder Technol 2017; 312: 248–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2017.02.047
25. Arab BP, Celestino BT. A microscopic study on kerfs in rocks subjected to abrasive waterjet cutting. Wear 2020; 448–449: 203210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2020.203210
26. Tripathi R, Hloch S, Chattopadhyaya S. et al. Application of the pulsating and continuous water jet for granite erosion. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2020; 126: 104209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2020.104209
27. Aydin G, Kaya S, Karakurt I. Effect of abrasive type on marble cutting performance of abrasive waterjet. Arab J Geosci 2019; 2(11): 356–363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-019-4475-0
28. Kaya S, Aydin G, Karakurt I. An experimental study on the cutting depth produced by abrasive waterjet: How do abrasive and rock properties affect the cutting process? J Adv Manuf Technol 2023; 2: 123: 4811–4823. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-023-11053-5
29. Xiao S, Wang P, Hang G, Soulat D. A study of abrasive waterjet multi-pass cutting on kerf quality of carbon fiber-reinforced plastics. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2019; 105: 4527–4537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-3177-1
30. Cha Y, Kim WJ, Kim SJ. et al. Assessment of abrasive impact frequency depending on the traverse rate in waterjet rock cutting. In Proceedings of the 2021 World Congress on Advances in Structural Engineering and Mechanics (ASEM21); 23–26 August 2021a; Gece, Seoul, Korea, pp. 1-8.
31. Aydin G, Karakurt I, Amiri RM. et al. Improvement of rock cutting performance through two-pass abrasive waterjet cutting. Sustainability 2022; 14(19): 12704. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912704
32. Ge Z, Shangguan J, Zhou Z. et al. Investigation of fracture damage and breaking energy consumption of hard rock repeatedly cut by abrasive waterjet. Rock Mech Rock Eng 2023; 56: 3215–3230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-023-03230-5
33. Cha Y, Lee LH, Kim SJ, Oh MT. Granite cutting performance depending on the traverse speed in abrasive waterjet multi cutting. J Adv Manuf Technol 2024; 132: 3771–3783. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-024-13571-2
34. Cha Y, Oh MT, Hwang JH. et al. Simple approach for evaluation of abrasive mixing efficiency for abrasive waterjet rock cutting. Appl Sci 2021b; 11: 1543. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11041543
35. Li L, Wang F, Li T. et al. The effects of inclined particle water jet on rock failure mechanism: Experimental and numerical study. J Pet Sci Eng 2020; 185,: 106639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2019.106639
36. Liu J, Zhu Y, Du S. Failure mechanism and effect of nozzle parameters on abrasive water jet rock breaking. Shock and Vib 2021; 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6621255
37. Li XF, Li HB, Zhang GK. et al. Rate dependency mechanism of crystalline rocks induced by impacts: Insights from grain-scale fracturing and micro heterogeneity. Int J Impact Eng 2021; 155: 103855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2021.103855
38. Barabas S, Florescu A. Reduction of cracks in marble appeared at hydro-abrasive jet cutting using the Taguchi method. Materials 2022; 15(2): 486. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15020486
39. Perec A, Radomska-Zalas A, Fajdek-Bieda A. Experimental research into marble cutting by abrasive water jet. Mech Eng 2022; 20: 145–156. https://doi.org/10.22190/FUME210203037P
40. Chomka G, Kasperowicz M, Chodór J. et al. Possibilities of rock processing with a high-pressure abrasive waterjet with an aspect terms to minimizing energy consumption. Materials 2023; 16: 647. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16020647
41. Fan C, Zhang H, Kang Y. et al. Rock breaking performance of the newly proposed unsubmerged cavitating abrasive waterjet. Int J Min Sci Technol 2023; 33: 843–853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2023.04.003
42. Liu F, Wang Y, Huang X. Cutting efficiency of extremely hard granite by high pressure water jet and prediction model of cutting depth based on energy method. Bull Eng Geol Environ 2024; 83: 95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-024-03586-0
43. Wang C, Zhang J, Ma C. et al. Experimental study on the performance and mechanism of high-pressure abrasive waterjet cutting hard rock. Geotech Geol Eng 2024; 42: 3471–3489. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-27016-7
44. Aydin G, Amiri RM, Kaya S, Karakurt I. Utilisation of glass waste as an abrasive in abrasive waterjet machining. P I Mech Eng C: J Mech Eng Sci 2025; 239(22): 9332 – 9346. https://doi.org/10.1177/09544062251370573
45. Rogai I, Karakurt I, Aydin G, Karabacak EY, Roudini A, Avci DB. Modeling and optimization of the declineation angle generated by abrasive waterjet multi – pass and forward angling cuttings using machine learning. P I Mech Eng E-J Pro 2025a; https://doi.org/10.1177/09544089251382 (Baskıda)
46. Rogai I, Karakurt I, Aydin G, Karabacak EY, Avci DB, Kaya S. An investigation into the abrasive waterjet cutting of rocks: Improving the cutting performance and leveraging the machine learning algorithms for modelling. Min Metall Explor 2025b; 42: 2943–2962. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42461-025-01342-w
47. Kaya S, Aydin G, Karakurt I. Influence of workpiece and abrasive characteristics on material removal rate in abrasive waterjet cutting of rock. Min Metall Explor 43: 2141–2155 2026. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42461-026-01532-0
48. Aydin G, Sahinoglu E, Rogai I, Karakurt I, Kaya S.Indirect grinding-based approach for brittleness comparison of various abrasives. P I Mech Eng E-J Pro 2026; https://doi.org/10.1177/09544089251382 (Baskıda).
49. ISRM. The complete ISRM suggested methods for rock characterization, testing and monitoring: 1974–2006 (Eds. Ulusay, R., & Hudson, J.A.). Kozan Ofset, Ankara, 2007; 628 s.
50. EN 14157: Natural stone test methods – Determination of the abrasion resistance. CEN European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium 2017.