Influence of reduced graphene oxide addition on kerf width in abrasive water jet machining of nanofiller added epoxy-glass fibre composite.

The present study aims to develop a novel hybrid polymer composite with reduced graphene oxide (rGO) as filler and optimize its Abrasive Water Jet Machining (AWJM) parameters for reduced kerf width. The influence of rGO addition on kerf width is analysed in detail along with Pump pressure (bar), Transverse speed (mm/min) and Standoff distance(mm). The experiments are designed based on Taguchi's orthogonal array techniques in which L27 is adopted for three input parameters at three levels. The influence of each factor is used to identify the significance of selected parameters over kerf width, and it was found that stand of distance has a major effect over kerf width irrespective of rGO %. The addition of rGO filler has a significant effect on kerf width, which decreases with the addition of rGO up to 0.2% and kerf width increases for further addition of rGO.

Introduction

Polymer matrix composite has a major role in the industrial sector owing to its unique merits such as high stiffness, lower in weight while compared with traditional metals, and capability to mould complex shaped products with better damping behaviour. Nowadays, carbonaceous nanomaterials, nano clays and metal oxides such as graphene, CNT, BN, SiO2, TiO2, Montmorillonite etc., are incorporated into the polymer matrix to improvise its basic and functional properties [1-4]. Herein graphene-based nanofillers are incorporated in an epoxy matrix and attain notable improvement in mechanical properties that includes flexural strength, tensile strength etc.; also, some studies reveal that usage of carbonaceous material made the developed composite suitable for fabricating the components of electronic devices [5-8].

Generally, continuous fibers are utilized in developing polymer matrix composite for structural applications, especially in aerospace and transport industries. Due to the usage of continuous fiber, slots and hole making over fibre-reinforced composites is a difficult task to date [9-13]. Machining fibre reinforced composite using conventional technique results in poor dimensional accuracy, fiber pull-out, high operating cost, fibre damage, higher tool wear rate, interlaminate failure, surface damage etc. To overcome these facts, unconventional machining process such as ultrasonic machining, abrasive water jet machining, and water jet machining is adopted for machining fibre-reinforced composite [14,15]. Among them, Abrasive water jet machining was preferred in industries owing to its unique characteristics like better cutting speed, low-temperature operation and nil dust generation during machining of composite.

In AWJM, the surface of the composite is not affected by thermal stress damages due to the action of water coolant, and the presence of abrasives particles improves the material removal process. In general, silicon carbide, garnet, aluminium oxide etc., are generally used as abrasives in AWJM [16,17]. The abrasive water jet machining performance is mostly influenced by process parameters, quantity and type of filler and reinforcement addition in polymer matrix composite. Hence, it is inevitable to select proper control factors to attain better surface quality and machinability in fibre reinforced composite machining [18,19]. For selecting optimal machining parameters, statistical tools like Taguchi, Genetic algorithm, ANN, Grey relation analysis, Response surface methodology etc., are used by researchers [20-22]. There are few researches that deal with abrasive water jet machining of fibre-reinforced polymer composite. Kalyan Kumar Singh and Raju Kumar Thakur developed epoxy-glass fibre composite with the addition of various wt.% of carbon nanotube fillers and optimized its AWJM characteristics [23]. Process parameter like Traverse rate, jet pressure, and standoff distance was selected to understand their effects over kerf taper, surface roughness and material removal rate. Results reveals that increase in level of Traverse rate improvise the output parameter and also depicts that filler materials addition is a major influencing factor for kerf taper. Grey relation analysis was utilized by G. Anand and co-workers to attain optimal parameter for AWJM of polymer matrix composite [24]. Results depict that abrasive flow rate act as significant parameter on influencing output parameters. K.R. Sumesh and co-worker utilized AWJM to understand the machinability behaviour of fillers reinforced polymer composite. Process parameter such as Water jet pressure, Traverse speed, Standoff distance was selected as input parameter; kerf angle and surface roughness as output response. Results reveals that filler weight percentage has major influence over output parameter, also observed that lower range of Traverse speed and Standoff distance decreases the kerf angle and surface roughness of developed composite [25]. Arunkumar et al. used response surface methodology to investigate the machinability of graphene filler reinforced polymer composite using AWJM. Surface roughness was selected as output parameter whereas Water Pressure, Traverse speed and Standoff distance are selected as input parameters. Results reveals that better surface finishing for graphene filler-based composite can be attained by increasing water pressure and decreasing the nozzle transfer speed [26].

Based on the reviewed literature, it can be depicted that the addition of graphene-based hybrid fillers increases the functional behaviour of polymer matrix composite. However, there are only a few works of literature based on the machinability behaviour of hybrid graphene filler reinforced polymer matrix composite. Based on this fact, an attempt has been made to understand its machinability behaviour by adopting an abrasive water jet machining process. The compression moulding process has been used to develop reduced graphene- Mont Morillonite Nano clay filler reinforced epoxy-glass fiber composite. The AWJM experimental design is done through the Taguchi method, and the effect of reduced graphene oxide filler is also investigated.

Materials and method

In this research, LY 556 grade epoxy along with HY951 grade hardener is selected as matrix material by maintaining the ratio of 1:10. The above-mentioned epoxy grade exhibits an acceptable range of dimension stability which makes it a widely used base matrix. By the addition of an optimal percentage of reinforcement and filler material, the basic and functional properties of the epoxy might be improved. 200 GSM glass fibres are selected as reinforcement fibre, and it is added with epoxy matrix at 30 wt. %. Based on available literature surveys, it was found that the optimal level of glass fibre is 30 wt. % to improvise the structural strength of the epoxy matrix. Herein reduced graphene oxide and Mont Morillonite Nano clay (MMT) with the size range of 50–100 nm was used as filler material in order to improve the thermal stability and binding efficiency among matrix material with reinforcement. A detailed procedure for reduced graphene synthesis was already reported in our previous studies, and MMT was purchased from Ad-nano Tech. In this research weight percentage of MMT was fixed as 1.5, and the wt. % of reduced graphene oxide is varied at a constant interval of 0.1 up to 0.3.

Composite fabrication

The compression moulding approach is adopted to develop the proposed combinations of epoxy–glass fibre composites. As per the research plan, calculated wt.% of filler material is ultrasonicated separately for 1hr with an organic solvent. After attaining proper dispersion, the filler solution is mixed together for 2 hr through ultra-sonication. The dispersed hybrid filler is added to the epoxy matrix and then mechanically stirred for 2 hr at a speed of 1200 rpm. Further HY951 hardener is added to the matrix filler mixture with a calculated ratio of 1: 10. Initially, the hand layup method is used to coat the matrix filler mixture over glass fiber. The stacking of coated glass fibre is made with a plate thickness of 30 mm in dimension, followed by degassing. The stacked polymer matrix is pressed using a hot press under 15 MPa pressure, followed by a curing process [4]. The same procedure is followed to develop the remaining set of composites with different amounts of filler addition. The developed composite with a varying weight percentage of r-GO is depicted in Fig 1. This developed composite exhibits better mechanical and flame retardancy properties up to 0.3 wt. % addition of r-GO fillers. The detailed investigation of the mechanical behaviour of the developed composite was illustrated in our previous report [27].

Fig 1

Composite plate with varying r-GO addition a) 0.1 wt.% b)0.2 wt.% c) 0.3wt.%.

Experimental design

The machinability studies of the fabricated composite are carried out using Abrasives Water Jet Machine (AWJM). Herein the utilized AWJM consists of a high-pressure pump (DIPS6-2230) combined with a water jet cutter (DWJ1313-FB) with a 90° impact angle and 0.7 mm diameter orifice. Fig 2A depicts the visualization of AWJM with garnet sand as the abrasive particle (80 mesh). Based on the literature survey and experts console, stand-off distance, transverse speed and pump pressure are selected as input parameters. The traditional Taguchi method is adopted for experimental planning and to understand the effects of the control parameter. In this research 3 factors, each at 3 levels, are selected for the experimental plan (Table 1). Kerf width is taken as the output parameter, and it is measured by calculating the distance between machined slots using a Leica microscope coupled with an image analyser, as depicted in Fig 2B. Three reading has been taken from different places of slots between machined surfaces for the exactness of the reading, and the mean values are taken.

Fig 2

a) Abrasive water jet machine b) optical image of machine surface for kerf width measurement.

Table 1

Process parameter for machinability studies.

Factors	Notation	Level 1	Level 2	Level 3
Pump pressure (bar)	A	220	240	260
Transverse speed (mm/min)	B	30	40	50
Stand of distance (mm)	C	1	2	3

In order to minimize the experimental cost and time, the L27 orthogonal array is chosen by using Statistical Software R programming. Effects of input parameter over output response have been understood by Taguchi’s method. In this research, kerf width is selected as the output response and the smaller, the better criteria have been chosen since minimal kerf width will improve the dimensional accuracy. Figs 3 and 4 display the L27 orthogonal array data in matrix scatter plot and hierarchical clustering among input and output variables using R programming. Scatter-plot matrix is used to identify the correlation among the set of variable pairs. These pairwise correlations can be organised in the form of a matrix. In general present matrix pair in diagonal order depicts a better correlation among the matrix pairs and absents of outliers in the attained output data. A hierarchical cluster is an analysis worked by the algorithm in which similar data are grouped in the form of clusters. Herein each cluster is varied from each other, and the values are widely similar to each other. From Fig 4, it can be noted that the values of the output parameter are grouped into four clusters with two expressive colour blue and brown (dark and lighter). The L27 orthogonal array of developed composite is listed in Table 2. These are ordered at the range of -1 to 1 with respect to the input parameter. The values of output parameters are predominant ordering from top to bottom displayed in the form of lighter and dark colours of blue and brown.

Fig 3

Matrix scatterplot of L27 OA dataset.

Fig 4

Hierarchical clustering of correlation coefficient matrix of input variables.

Table 2

L27 orthogonal array of the developed composite.

A	B	C	Kerf width (μm)				S/N ratio
			0%	0.1%	0.2%	0.3%	0%	0.1%	0.2%	0.3%
220	30	1	1.46	1.41	1.50	1.61	-3.29	-2.98	-3.52	-4.14
220	30	2	1.51	1.49	1.56	1.67	-3.58	-3.46	-3.86	-4.45
220	30	3	1.56	1.54	1.64	1.75	-3.86	-3.75	-4.30	-4.86
220	40	1	1.43	1.39	1.48	1.57	-3.11	-2.86	-3.41	-3.92
220	40	2	1.49	1.48	1.54	1.61	-3.46	-3.41	-3.75	-4.14
220	40	3	1.56	1.52	1.59	1.72	-3.86	-3.64	-4.03	-4.71
220	50	1	1.37	1.35	1.40	1.52	-2.73	-2.61	-2.92	-3.64
220	50	2	1.41	1.40	1.46	1.59	-2.98	-2.92	-3.29	-4.03
220	50	3	1.52	1.48	1.57	1.67	-3.64	-3.41	-3.92	-4.45
240	30	1	1.52	1.51	1.55	1.67	-3.64	-3.58	-3.81	-4.45
240	30	2	1.55	1.52	1.59	1.67	-3.81	-3.64	-4.03	-4.45
240	30	3	1.64	1.61	1.67	1.80	-4.30	-4.14	-4.45	-5.11
240	40	1	1.49	1.46	1.53	1.58	-3.46	-3.29	-3.69	-3.97
240	40	2	1.51	1.48	1.55	1.66	-3.58	-3.41	-3.81	-4.40
240	40	3	1.63	1.60	1.69	1.79	-4.24	-4.08	-4.56	-5.06
240	50	1	1.43	1.39	1.47	1.57	-3.11	-2.86	-3.35	-3.92
240	50	2	1.49	1.47	1.53	1.64	-3.46	-3.35	-3.69	-4.30
240	50	3	1.59	1.56	1.64	1.75	-4.03	-3.86	-4.30	-4.86
260	30	1	1.49	1.46	1.52	1.63	-3.46	-3.29	-3.64	-4.24
260	30	2	1.62	1.57	1.65	1.75	-4.19	-3.92	-4.35	-4.86
260	30	3	1.66	1.64	1.72	1.85	-4.40	-4.30	-4.71	-5.34
260	40	1	1.49	1.45	1.52	1.64	-3.46	-3.23	-3.64	-4.30
260	40	2	1.56	1.52	1.58	1.67	-3.86	-3.64	-3.97	-4.45
260	40	3	1.66	1.60	1.73	1.84	-4.40	-4.08	-4.76	-5.30
260	50	1	1.44	1.40	1.47	1.56	-3.17	-2.92	-3.35	-3.86
260	50	2	1.53	1.49	1.56	1.68	-3.69	-3.46	-3.86	-4.51
260	50	3	1.61	1.58	1.63	1.74	-4.14	-3.97	-4.24	-4.81

Result and discussion

The kerf width values measured with the aid of an optical microscope for the polymer composite specimen with and without filler addition are given in Fig 5. These values are converted into a signal to noise ratio to find the influence of each factor over kerf width.

Fig 5

Effect of machining parameter on Kerf width of developed composite.

Effect of process parameter on epoxy glass fibre composite

The response Table 3 shows the mean signal to noise ratio values calculated based on the experimental results for composite without r-GO addition. It is clearly evident from the table that the pump pressure has a negative impact over kerf width. Kerf width increased considerably with an increase in pump pressure owing to the higher cutting force acting over the developed specimen. When the pump pressure is high, the kinetic energy of the jet is also high, which opens a wider slot over the work surface, i.e., kerf width increases. On the other hand, the increase in transverse speed results in reduced kerf width. But the kerf width increases greatly with an increase in standoff distance. Jet divergence is considered the main reason behind the increased kerf width at a higher standoff distance. It can also be notified from Table 3 that stand of distance acts as the major significant parameter for Kerf width. This fact may be owing to the expansion and disintegration of the abrasive water jet particle through boundary interactions.

Table 3

Response table for glass fibre epoxy composite.

Level	Pump Pressure (bar)	Transverse speed (mm/min)	Stand of Distance (mm)
1	1.479	1.557	1.458
2	1.539	1.536	1.519
3	1.562	1.488	1.603
Delta	0.083	0.069	0.146
Rank	2	3	1

The combined effect of process parameters on over-developed composite materials is shown in Fig 6A–6C. It can be noted that the kerf width is higher at maximum values of pump pressure and standoff distance (Fig 6A). Higher level of standoff distance and pump pressure results in discharging of water jet particles at high-pressure conditions, followed by lower surface contact between specimen and nozzle. At this condition, water jet particles impact over the specimen surface at higher pressure, which results in incremental kerf width. Likewise, increases in pump pressure and transverse pressure results in higher kerf with values (Fig 6B). This might be due to the combined effect of process parameters that stimulate the discharging of abrasive particles under high velocity and pressure [26]. The impact of these particles over the composite surface at the above said condition results in increased kerf width. Fig 6C depicts that kerf width values are minimal at lower standoff distance and transverse speed; during this process condition, the distance between the composite surface and nozzle is lower with a minimum velocity of abrasive water jet particles. This fact might be the reason for the lower kerf width at the combined effect. Based on ANOVA results, it can be noted that the selected parameters have a considerable significant effect on kerf width (Table 4). As the p-value for all the input parameters is less than 0.05, it is said to be significant. Also, the R-Square value of 95.62% shows the reliability of the analysis performed. The contribution percentage chart given in Fig 7 confirms that the stand of distance (63.33%) has a major effect over kerf width, followed by pump pressure (21.91%) and transverse speed (14.77%).

Fig 6

Influence of AWJM parameters on kerf width for PMC without filler.

Table 4

ANOVA for glass fibre epoxy composite.

Source	DF	Seq SS	Adj SS	Adj MS	F—Test	P—value
Pump pressure (bar)	2	0.033267	0.033267	0.016633	47.83	0
Transverse speed (mm/min)	2	0.022422	0.022422	0.011211	32.24	0
Stand of Distance (mm)	2	0.096156	0.096156	0.048078	138.24	0
Error	20	0.006956	0.006956	0.000348
Total	26	0.1588

R-Square value = 95.62%.

Fig 7

Contribution of machining parameters in epoxy glass fibre composite.

Effect of process parameters for 0.1 wt. % of filler loaded composite

From Fig 5, it can be observed that kerf width values are minimal for reduced graphene oxide filler reinforced composites. These filler particles have better efficiency in improvising the interfacial interaction among that matrix and reinforcement that improve the load-carrying capability of matrix materials. Due to this strengthening mechanism, the developed composite can withstand the impact of high-velocity abrasive particles and decreases the surface damage, consequently minimal kerf width. Another reason might be the higher surface area of filler material that decreases the effect of high-velocity abrasive particles during machining conditions [28]. Herein the standoff distance act as a significant parameter for the composite loaded with 0.1 wt.% reduced graphene oxide (Table 5). A higher level in standoff distance values results in more expansion of jet that increases the kinetic energy losses in abrasive water jet particles; thus, kerf width increases. It can also be noted that transverse speed has a minimal effect on kerf width for reduced graphene oxide loaded composite.

Table 5

Response table of 0.1 wt. % filler loaded composite.

Level	Pump Pressure (bar)	Transverse speed (mm/min)	Stand of Distance (mm)
1	1.451	1.528	1.424
2	1.511	1.5	1.491
3	1.523	1.458	1.57
Delta	0.072	0.07	0.146
Rank	2	3	1

Table 6 depicts the ANOVA results for 0.1 wt.% reduced graphene oxide loaded composite; it confirms that the selected parameters have significant effects over kerf width. As the p-value for all the input parameters is less than 0.05, it is said to be significant. Also, the R-Square value of 95.48% shows the reliability of the executed analysis. From ANOVA results, the contribution percentage of each selected parameter can be calculated based on sequential sums of square values. It can be depicted (Fig 8) that the stand of distance (65.99%) has a major effect over kerf width, followed by pump pressure (18.57%) and transverse speed (15.44%). When compared with the results of the composite without filler, the effect of pump pressure over kerf width was slightly reduced for 0.1% filler added PMC.

Table 6

ANOVA of 0.1 wt. % filler loaded composite.

Source	DF	Seq SS	Adj SS	Adj MS	F—Test	P—value
Pump pressure(bar)	2	0.026896	0.026896	0.013448	39.25	0
Transverse speed (mm/min)	2	0.022363	0.022363	0.011181	32.64	0
Stand of Distance (mm)	2	0.095563	0.095563	0.047781	139.47	0
Error	20	0.006852	0.006852	0.000343
Total	26	0.151674

R-Square value = 95.48%.

Fig 8

Contribution of machining parameters in 0.1 wt. % filler loaded composite.

The combined effect of machining parameters over Kerf width of 0.1 wt. % of reduced graphene oxide loaded composite is depicted in Fig 9A–9C. Higher values of transverse speed at minimal pump pressure exhibit lower kerf width values. Herein addition of reduced graphene oxide filler results in higher impact resistance of the developed composite, and this fact increases the energy absorbing capacity of the matrix material. This might be the reason for variation or minimal kerf values for reduced graphene oxide loaded composite while compared with composite developed without the addition of filler materials. Likewise, comparatively, the significance of the machining parameter is the same for the non-filler and filler loaded composites; however, the values of kerf width are minimal for filler loaded composites due to the above said facts. It can also be noted that increment in values of pump pressure results in higher kerf width owing to increased kinetic energy that imposing over the composite surface, which widens the narrow slot [29]. Likewise, incremental values of kerf width at higher traverse speed might be due to the quicker passing of high-velocity abrasive particles that allows the minimal quantity of abrasive particles strikes over the targeted areas, thus decreasing the kerf width.

Fig 9

Influence of AWJM parameters on kerf width for 0.1 wt.

% of filler loaded composite.

Effect of process parameters for 0.2 wt. % of filler loaded composite

The kerf width values of 0.2 wt.% reduced graphene oxide loaded composites are converted into SN ratio, and its mean values are depicted in Table 7. It can be observed that kerf width values are higher for 0.2 wt.% reduced graphene oxide loaded composite when compared with 0.1 wt.% reduced graphene oxide composite. This fact might be due to the clustering effect of nanofiller that results in the formation of voids that weaker the interfacial bonding among the matrix and glass fibre. Likewise, the presence of 1.5 wt.% MMT particles and 0.1 wt.% of reduced graphene oxide might be the suitable loading percentage for the proposed composite. Further variation in reduced graphene oxide loading might decrease the interaction among the fibre and matrix. From Table 7, it can be depicted that standoff distance act as the most significant parameter over kerf width where an increase in standoff distance increases the divergence of abrasive water jet particles; hence the kerf width increases. During the above-said machining condition, water jet particles travel a long way before impact over the composite surface resulting in the formation of jet divergence. This fact increases the diameter of the jet, and an increment in jet diameter increases the width of the cutting area, thus increasing the kerf width. Pump pressure has lower significance over kerf width; herein, an increment in the range of pump pressure decreases the kerf width. Since the increase in pump pressure increases the kinetic energy of abrasive water particles that form a turbulence flow of jet with higher pressure, it increases the kerf width.

Table 7

Response table of 0.2 wt. % reduced graphene oxide loaded composite.

Level	Pump Pressure (bar)	Transverse speed (mm/min)	Stand of Distance (mm)
1	1.527	1.6	1.493
2	1.58	1.579	1.558
3	1.598	1.526	1.653
Delta	0.071	0.074	0.16
Rank	3	2	1

ANOVA table for the composite with 0.2% filler confirms that the parameters considered are having a significant effect over kerf width (Table 8). As the p-value for all the input parameters is less than 0.05, it is said to be significant. Also, the R-Square value of 94.69% shows the reliability of the analysis performed. The contribution percentage confirms that the stand of distance (69.52%) has a major effect over kerf width, followed by pump pressure (14.69%) and transverse speed (15.79%). The effect of pump pressure over kerf width further reduced to 14.69% for 0.2% filler added PMC from 18.57% for PMC with 0.1% filler and 21.91% for PMC without filler(Fig 10).

Table 8

ANOVA table for 0.2 wt. % filler loaded composite.

Source	DF	Seq SS	Adj SS	Adj MS	F—Test	P—value
Pump pressure(bar)	2	0.024652	0.024652	0.012326	26.2	0
Transverse speed (mm/min)	2	0.026496	0.026496	0.013248	28.17	0
Stand of Distance (mm)	2	0.116652	0.116652	0.058326	124	0
Error	20	0.009407	0.009407	0.00047
Total	26	0.177207

R-Square value = 94.69%.

Fig 10

Contribution of machining parameters in 0.2 wt. % filler loaded composite.

From Fig 11 it can be noted that kerf width is minimal for higher transverse speed and lower standoff distance. Likewise, minimal kerfwidth was depicted for the combination of lower pump pressure and higher transverse speed. During the above-said machining condition, the abrasive jet particles will pass through the hybrid filler which has a better surface area and high energy absorbing capability. Due to this fact, the abrasive particles might drop or loses their kinetic energy, and further impact over the composite surface results in loss of sharpness; only a few particles might be able to infiltrate the composite surface, and another abrasive particle may retard over the composite surface. It can also be visualized that kerf width is maximum at a higher level of stand-off distance. An increase in standoff distance results in disintegration and expansion of water jet further, thus increasing the kerf width. A higher value of pump pressure and lower values of transverse speed increases the kerfwidth. This fact may be an effect of selecting material process as well as the various ratios on the kinetic energy of the jet used in machining the specimen.

Fig 11

Influence of AWJM parameters on kerf width for 0.2 wt. % of filler loaded composite.

Effect of process parameters for 0.3 wt. % of filler loaded composite

From Fig 5, it can be depicted that kerf width values are higher for composite developed with 0.3 wt.% reduced graphene oxide loading. This might be due to weaker interaction among the selected hybrid fillers. It can also be depicted that a combination of lower wt.% of reduced graphene oxide exhibits lower kerf width. Likewise, Kerf width increases with amplification in pump pressure and stand-off distance, whereas Kerf width decreases with an increase in transverse speed. Table 9 showcases that pump pressure has a lower influence on over-developed composite; it might be due to increased loading of reduced graphene oxide filler. The addition of reduced graphene oxide filler increases the impact strength, due to which the developed composite gains the ability to withstand the load applied by abrasive particles. This might be the reason for the lesser significance of pump pressure in a fabricated composite. Herein, transverse speed acts as the second parameter to influence kerf width. At lower transverse speed, a greater number of abrasive waster jet particles are involved in the machining process that reducing the chance of interfacial rebounding of abrasive over the composite surface, thus increasing the kerfwidth [4].

Table 9

Response table for 0.3 wt. % of filler loaded composite.

Level	Pump Pressure (bar)	Transverse speed (mm/min)	Stand of Distance (mm)
1	1.634	1.711	1.594
2	1.681	1.676	1.66
3	1.707	1.636	1.768
Delta	0.072	0.076	0.173
Rank	3	2	1

Table 10 showcases the ANOVA results of the composite with 0.3% reduced graphene oxide loading. It confirms that the parameters considered are having a significant effect over kerf width. As the p-value for all the input parameters is less than 0.05, it is said to be significant. Also, the R-Square value of 94.50% shows the reliability of the analysis performed. The contribution percentage chart given in Fig 12 confirms that the stand of distance (73.44%) has a major effect over kerf width, followed by pump pressure (12.86%) and transverse speed (13.7%). The effect of pump pressure over kerf width further reduced to 12.86% for 0.3% filler added PMC from 14.69% for PMC with 0.2% filler, 18.57% for PMC with 0.1% filler and 21.91% for PMC without filler.

Table 10

ANOVA for 0.3 wt. % of reduced graphene oxide loaded composite.

Source	DF	Seq SS	Adj SS	Adj MS	F—Test	P-value
Pump pressure(bar)	2	0.024141	0.024141	0.01207	22.11	0
Transverse speed (mm/min)	2	0.025719	0.025719	0.012859	23.55	0
Stand of Distance (mm)	2	0.137874	0.137874	0.068937	126.28	0
Error	20	0.010919	0.010919	0.000546
Total	26	0.198652

R-Square value = 94.50%.

Fig 12

Contribution of machining parameters in 0.1 wt. % filler loaded composite.

Fig 13 depicts the combinational effect of machining parameters for reduced graphene oxide loaded composites. It can be noted that increasing the order of pump pressure and standoff distance increases the kerf width. A similar trend was attained for a combination of transverse speed and higher standoff distance. An increase in transverse speed results in a high traverse rate that results in less overlapping of composite surface machining and lesser imposing over machining surface; this fact reduces kerf width. From the combination plot, it is also inferred that lower standoff distance and pump pressure alone with higher transverse speed is the optimal machining condition for machining the 0.3 wt.% reduced graphene oxide loaded composite.

Fig 13

Influence of AWJM parameters on kerf width for 0.3 wt. % of filler loaded composite.

Conclusion

Reduced graphene oxide and MMT nanofiller added polymer composite with glass fibre reinforcement are successfully fabricated through compression moulding, and its machinability behaviour is analysed through AWJM with kerf width as the response variable. The conclusion derived from the experimentation is as follows

The addition of rGO filler has a significant effect over kerf width, which decreases with the addition of rGO up to 0.2% and kerf width increases for further addition of rGO.

Analysis of Variance results exposes that stand of distance has a major effect over kerf width irrespective of rGO %.

An increase in standoff distance and pump pressure increases the kerf width, whereas the kerf width is low at a higher transverse speed of the nozzle.

The influence of pump pressure over kerf width decreases slightly with an increase in rGO filler addition.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

15 Apr 2022

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Yasir Nawab, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript”

At this time, please address the following queries:

a)        Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

b)        State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c)        If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d)        If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

5. Please upload a new copy of Figure 8 as the detail is not clear. Please follow the link for more information: https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/

6. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 9 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

7. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 3 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript “Influence of reduced graphene oxide addition on kerf width in abrasive water jet machining of nano filler added Epoxy-Glass Fibre composite” by Krishnaraj et.al. present novel and interesting results that deserve to be published after several minor improvements:

1. It will be of great interest if the Surface roughness at varied Water Jet Pressure and material removal rate at different traverse speed should be included in detail with proper interpretation of results.

2. Scanning electron microscope is the most important testing technique to understand the distribution of nanoparticles as well the surface information. The results are missing, and it should be included in it.

3. Mechanical testing in combinations for detecting flexural, impact, tensile, density and hardness properties should be included as well.

4. Rheological properties are important in order to understand the nanofiller and epoxy blends. Please included these properties.

5. The Figure captions are much unsatisfactory. It is a fundamental responsibility of the authors to make Figures self-explanatory. Go to the guidelines and examples and prepare the Figure captions accordingly. This applies to all Figures with this manuscript.

6. FTIR data should be included.

Reviewer #2: Authors need to provide minor information and include in the paper as mentioned below.

1) Provide the L27 experiments combinations.

2) Provide the measured readings of the kerf in a table with the instrument used for the measurement of kerf.

3) Figure 2 and Figure 3 should be explained in detail with their relevance.

4) Fabricated composites pictures to be provided.

5) Effect on the composites layers can be discussed during the cutting.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: Comments.docx

Click here for additional data file.

28 May 2022

Response to reviewer:

Reviewer 1

Comment 1: It will be of great interest if the Surface roughness at varied Water Jet Pressure and material removal rate at different traverse speed should be included in detail with proper interpretation of results.

Response: Thanks for your valuable comments. This article is mainly focus on effect of machining parameters on kerf width here the other output parameter are neglected. The parameter such as surface roughness and material removal rate are optimized and interpreted as separate manuscript.

Comment 2: Scanning electron microscope is the most important testing technique to understand the distribution of nanoparticles as well the surface information. The results are missing, and it should be included in it.

Response: presence of filler has been confirmed by XRD analysis it is already published in our article .https://www.hindawi.com/journals/apt/2021/6627743/

Comment 3: Mechanical testing in combinations for detecting flexural, impact, tensile, density and hardness properties should be included as well.

Response: Thanks for your valuable suggestion. The mechanical properties of the developed r-GO-MMT reinforced composite have been already published in our article. Please refer the link .https://www.hindawi.com/journals/apt/2021/6627743/.The necessary citation has been made in this revised manuscript

These developed composite exhibits better mechanical and flame retardancy properties upto 0.3 wt. % addition of r-GO fillers. The detailed investigation on mechanical behaviour of developed composite was illustrated in our previous report [29].

Comment 4: Rheological properties are important in order to understand the nanofiller and epoxy blends. Please include these properties.

Response: This manuscript is extensively focus on machinability of developed composite hence rheological studies may be neglected

Comment 5: The Figure captions are much unsatisfactory. It is a fundamental responsibility of the authors to make Figures self-explanatory. Go to the guidelines and examples and prepare the Figure captions accordingly. This applies to all Figures with this manuscript.

Response: As per reviewer recommendation captions of the figure has been modified

Comment 6 : FTIR data should be included.

Response: Fundamental characterization has been made in our previous manuscript and the necessary citation has been made.

Reviewer 2

Comments 1) provide the L27 experiments combinations.

Response: As per reviewer suggestion L27 OA has been added in this revised manuscript.

A B C Kerf width (µm) S/N ratio

0% 0.1 % 0.2% 0.3% 0% 0.1 % 0.2% 0.3%

220 30 1 1.46 1.41 1.50 1.61 -3.29 -2.98 -3.52 -4.14

220 30 2 1.51 1.49 1.56 1.67 -3.58 -3.46 -3.86 -4.45

220 30 3 1.56 1.54 1.64 1.75 -3.86 -3.75 -4.30 -4.86

220 40 1 1.43 1.39 1.48 1.57 -3.11 -2.86 -3.41 -3.92

220 40 2 1.49 1.48 1.54 1.61 -3.46 -3.41 -3.75 -4.14

220 40 3 1.56 1.52 1.59 1.72 -3.86 -3.64 -4.03 -4.71

220 50 1 1.37 1.35 1.40 1.52 -2.73 -2.61 -2.92 -3.64

220 50 2 1.41 1.40 1.46 1.59 -2.98 -2.92 -3.29 -4.03

220 50 3 1.52 1.48 1.57 1.67 -3.64 -3.41 -3.92 -4.45

240 30 1 1.52 1.51 1.55 1.67 -3.64 -3.58 -3.81 -4.45

240 30 2 1.55 1.52 1.59 1.67 -3.81 -3.64 -4.03 -4.45

240 30 3 1.64 1.61 1.67 1.80 -4.30 -4.14 -4.45 -5.11

240 40 1 1.49 1.46 1.53 1.58 -3.46 -3.29 -3.69 -3.97

240 40 2 1.51 1.48 1.55 1.66 -3.58 -3.41 -3.81 -4.40

240 40 3 1.63 1.60 1.69 1.79 -4.24 -4.08 -4.56 -5.06

240 50 1 1.43 1.39 1.47 1.57 -3.11 -2.86 -3.35 -3.92

240 50 2 1.49 1.47 1.53 1.64 -3.46 -3.35 -3.69 -4.30

240 50 3 1.59 1.56 1.64 1.75 -4.03 -3.86 -4.30 -4.86

260 30 1 1.49 1.46 1.52 1.63 -3.46 -3.29 -3.64 -4.24

260 30 2 1.62 1.57 1.65 1.75 -4.19 -3.92 -4.35 -4.86

260 30 3 1.66 1.64 1.72 1.85 -4.40 -4.30 -4.71 -5.34

260 40 1 1.49 1.45 1.52 1.64 -3.46 -3.23 -3.64 -4.30

260 40 2 1.56 1.52 1.58 1.67 -3.86 -3.64 -3.97 -4.45

260 40 3 1.66 1.60 1.73 1.84 -4.40 -4.08 -4.76 -5.30

260 50 1 1.44 1.40 1.47 1.56 -3.17 -2.92 -3.35 -3.86

260 50 2 1.53 1.49 1.56 1.68 -3.69 -3.46 -3.86 -4.51

260 50 3 1.61 1.58 1.63 1.74 -4.14 -3.97 -4.24 -4.81

Comments 2) Provide the measured readings of the kerf in a table with the instrument used for the measurement of kerf.

Response: As per reviewer console, the kerf width measurement has been detailed in this revised manuscript.

Kerf width is taken as the output parameter and it is measured by calculating the distance between machined slots using Leica microscope coupled with image analyser as depicted in figure 2b.

Comments 3) Figure 2 and Figure 3 should be explained in detail with their relevance.

Response: Necessary correction has been made as per reviewer recommendation

Scatter-plot matrix is used to identify the correlation among the set of variable pairs. These pair wise correlations can be organizes in a form of matrix. In general present matrix pair in diagonal order depicts the better correlation among the matrix pairs and absents of outliers in the attained output data’s. Hierarchical cluster is an analysis worked by algorithm in which the similar data’s are grouped in a form of clusters. Herein each clusters are varied from each other and the values are widely similar to each other. From figure 4 it can be noted that the values of output parameter are grouped into four clusters with two expressive colour blue and brown (dark and lighter).These are order at the range of -1 to 1 with respect to input parameter. The values of output parameters are predominant ordering from top to bottom displayed in the form of lighter and dark colours of blue and brown.

4) Fabricated composites pictures to be provided.

Response: as per reviewer recommendation pictures of fabricated composite has been added

Comments 5) Effect on the composites layers can be discussed during the cutting.

Response: This work is mainly focus on influence of machining parameter on kerf width hence effect of composite layers are neglected in this manuscript

Submitted filename: Response to reviewer.docx

Click here for additional data file.

12 Jun 2022

Influence of reduced graphene oxide addition on kerf width in abrasive water jet machining of nanofiller added Epoxy-Glass Fibre composite

PONE-D-22-08465R1

Dear Dr. Ramaswamy,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Yasir Nawab, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

8 Aug 2022

PONE-D-22-08465R1

Influence of reduced graphene oxide addition on kerf width in abrasive water jet machining of nanofiller added Epoxy-Glass Fibre composite

Dear Dr. Ramaswamy:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Yasir Nawab

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE