Waterjetting 30b - An opportunity missed, and a question raised

In the last post I wrote about the benefits of cutting a deep slot around the edges of a tunnel, and made reference to the work done here by Dr. El-Saie back in the mid-1970’s as part of his Doctoral Dissertation.

One of the concerns that we had to address was that the waterjet had to be able to penetrate all the different rock types that it might encounter, and at the same time, since the jet would only cut a short depth on each pass we also had to find a way of cutting the slot wide enough that the nozzle assembly could enter and deepen the slot over consecutive passes around the edge. Given that the available pressures in those days were limited, for us, to 30,000 psi and this pressure was insufficient, by itself, to cut through all the rocks we might encounter, Dr. El-Saie looked at several different ways of enhancing performance. These included adding abrasive to a high pressure jet stream, inducing cavitation into the jet stream and the potential for using the break-up of the jet into droplets to enhance cutting using the impact water hammer effect.

Because of other operating conditions it was not considered practical to try and develop the droplet impact idea for this program, and the work concentrated on examining the potential differences between abrasive waterjet injection and cavitation. To simplify the comparison the same basic nozzle design was used for the tests that were then run, although the shroud fitted to create the secondary (vacuum) chamber was modified to either allow abrasive entrainment, through ports, or to create cavitation. The presence of the ports did, however, allow the strength of the vacuum generated in the chamber to be measured as the jet passed through.

Figure 1. Nozzle designs used by Dr. El-Saie. Note that the upper design has ports leading into the vacuum chamber, so that abrasive can be drawn in by the jet passage. In the lower design there are no ports, and cavitation will be induced in the chamber by the jet passage, with the bubbles then drawn into the exiting jet.

One of the advantages of cavitating the jets is that the cavitation bubble collapse will spread out over a larger area on the target surface, so that the slot generated can be quite a bit larger than the originating jet. This can be shown in two pictures of a block of dolomite exposed to the same cavitating jet, at a pressure of 6,000 psi but one with the jet traversed along the block in a minute, while in the second case the jet is moved at a slower speed, taking five minutes to cross the block, which allows the jet to exploit the cracks generated by the cavitation. A fuller description of the process is given here.

Figure 2. Cavitation damage pattern on a block of dolomite showing the initial width of the jet (red lines), and the zone of damage that is being created around the traverse path.

Figure 3. Cavitation damage on a block of dolomite at a slower traverse speed, showing the width of the damage track that can be created. The slot is about half-an-inch deep.

In the course of the test program different shroud shapes were tested, but in all cases the comparison between an abrasive-laden jet and one containing cavitation bubbles was made with shroud shapes of the same overall dimensions.

The ratio of the exit diameter (discharge) from the shroud (D2) to that of the initial jet orifice (D1) was first changed to one of four different ratios, though the diameter of the initial jet was kept at 0.04 inches (1 mm). Of the different sizes tested the greatest vacuum in the chamber was measured with the smallest of the discharge diameters was tested.

Figure 4. The effect of increasing the throat length of the shroud on the vacuum pilled in the chamber, at different pressures.

If the discharge diameter was increased to 6.35 mm then the jet pressure had to be increased to 12,500 psi to obtain the same levels of vacuum achieved otherwise at 7,500 psi.

Figure 5. Vacuum pressures measured with a larger discharge diameter from the shroud, for different lengths and jet pressures.

Impact force measurements from the jet hitting a target at varying distances from the orifice, with and without the shroud showed relatively little difference in the overall total impact force (not considering abrasive) out to a distance of 6 inches. There was thus no apparent effect due to jet disintegration from the use of the shroud over these distances.

In order to compare the performance of the abrasive-laden jet with that of a cavitating jet, a new nozzle design was developed, and small samples of granite were rotated in front of each nozzle assembly, for 20 seconds. Because the jet had to be brought up to pressure for each test, and shut down afterwards, a steel shutter plate was placed between the nozzle and the target. One of the irritants in doing the tests was that the jets kept cutting through this shutter plate.

Figure 6. Steel shutter plate cut through in 6 seconds during system start-up.

The shroud, made of stainless steel, was also wearing out within a few minutes. Unfortunately we did not recognize that this was demonstrating that abrasive waterjets were an effective method for cutting metal – that commercial development had to wait for the more perspicacious Dr. Hashish to work with Flow Research and bring the technology to the market in 1980.

Part of the reason for our lack of interest was because of a different conclusion that Dr. El-Saie drew from his work, based on the following two curves. The first comparison of different jet results occurred with a jet pressure of 7,000 psi.

Figure 7. Volume of material removed from granite samples, as a function of distance, for four different jet conditions at a jet pressure of 7,000 psi.

Note that the three water jets do not have much significant effect on the granite at this distance and jet pressure (we had to learn some later lessons to make them more productive at this pressure). But even at this pressure the abrasive waterjet was effectively cutting the granite.

But it was the change in the relative position of these curves, as the pressure was then increased to 20,000 psi that caught our attention. (The intermediate plots are not given here).

Figure 8. Volume of material removed from granite samples, as a function of distance, for four different jet conditions at a jet pressure of 20,000 psi.

The water feed was not useful, since the power required to accelerate that volume drew heavily from that available through the jet.

The plain jet, without a shroud will cut granite at this pressure, particularly when moved over the surface. (And we later used this system to carve the Millennium Arch_ – as well as the Missouri Stonehenge). But the performance at that time was not that impressive.

Opening the ports on the shroud, without feeding anything into the jet caused, we believed a greater jet breakup and thus some additional droplet impact effects that improved cutting performance over that of the plain, more coherent jet, in part because the jet was spread over a larger contact surface.

Closing the jets induced cavitation in the stream, and this gave the best performance of the four – including abrasive injection. Again this was, in part because of the larger area of damage that the cavitation generated on the target, over the narrower slot of the abrasive-laden and plain jets.

In comparison the abrasive waterjet did rather poorly. In retrospect this is perhaps more of a surprise – but it should be born in mind that there was little attempt at optimizing the feed condition (which later research shows has a dramatic effect on performance) or the chamber geometry. Further the slot cut was much narrower than that created by the cavitating jet.

But it certainly caused us, in that time interval, to look more at cavitation, and to totally miss the implications of the AWJ result.

Most of these illustrations come from the Doctoral Dissertation by Dr. A. A. El-Saie “Investigation of Rock Slotting by High Pressure Waterjet for Use in Tunneling”, Mining Engineering Department, Missouri University of Science and Technology, (Then University of Missouri-Rolla), 1977.

Waterjetting 28c - using steel as an abrasive

One of the considerable disadvantages in using garnet and other similar minerals as a cutting agent in abrasive waterjet cutting is that the particles fragment during the mixing process, and when they hit the target. As a result (as noted in the last post) less than 50% and often much less than that can be usefully recycled. The distinction in adding the word usefully relates to the need to remove the finer particles from the recycled stock since that does not cut very well.

But what if we used an abrasive that is not degraded in the mixing process, and further one that can be more easily separated from the cuttings and spent water? The candidate is steel, which can be formed into small particles that do not degrade in size as they move through the mixing chamber, and generally hold shape even after they have hit the target. Steel also has the advantage that it can be magnetically removed from the jet stream as the flow is collected, and with no significant degradation in size it can then be readily recycled. In cases where we have monitored the recyclability of steel shot, we were able to re-use it more than fourteen times without seeing any degradation in performance. Re-using it this many times more than offsets the increased price of the original material, and will, in a short time, also pay for the relatively low costs of a magnetic separator.

Unfortunately it is not quite that simple a choice. There are a number of other considerations, which must be addressed to make the system work effectively, some of which may make the process too expensive. Three of the areas that need to be addressed form the subject of this post.

The first comes about as a result of the shape of the particles, and their retained mass and velocity on leaving the focusing tube. More than most other abrasives steel retains some elasticity during the cutting to the point that where the cutting and rebounding streams are not carefully confined, the particles can escape upwards into the cutting room. Once in the air they move at high speed, and bounce around the room, so that they can reach unanticipated places and can also be a hazard to folk doing the work.

Figure 1. Slot depths cut into granite by steel shot (left) and garnet (right)

The second problem relates to the cutting effectiveness. When cutting a brittle material the steel shot has a number of advantages, since the energy on impact is focused in the very small volume of the sphere in contact with the target. This improves the ability of the shot to generate and grow cracks in the impact zone and thereby improves the performance of the cut, over that of the mineral abrasives.

Figure 2. Relative performance of steel over garnet and sand in cutting dolomite, under otherwise similar conditions

However, when cutting ductile materials, such as metal, steel shot is not a good tool, since the focusing of the force means that the shot may get buried or just rebound from the target, without the tearing and plowing action that comes with the use of a more regular abrasive. One way to overcome the problem is to switch from a steel shot to steel grit, which is also available. The relative benefit can be illustrated by using the change from using glass spheres to using them after they have been broken into sharp fragments.

Figure 3. Effect of change in particle shape when using glass particles in cutting ductile composite material (after Faber and Oweinah).

This, by itself may not be a complete answer, since the process of making the grit makes it a little more vulnerable to abrasion and wear during the cutting process, but we have seen that it is possible to recycle most of the abrasive a number of times. However, because of the change in shape, it becomes a little more difficult to feed the abrasive into the cutting stream, and there have been occasions where the grit has bound up in the feed tube. This has, therefore, to be sized and the flow path designed, to ensure that this doesn’t happen.

Figure 4. Cuts made into tool steel using steel shot (left) and garnet (right)

The other change is to use a harder steel than normal. And here please note that there is a difference between the hardness of the steel and its toughness. As American Cutting Edge notes:

Hardness vs. Toughness: Generally as hardness increases, toughness decreases. Toughness is desirable when blades are heavily impacted, hardness when a blade is exposed to corrosive or abrasive materials.

Hardness is related to the amount of carbon in steel. Often the lower the carbon, the higher the toughness. Also, some steels do not perform at lower hardness as they were designed for use at higher hardness. . . . . . . . Hardness is a characteristic of a solid material expressing its resistance to permanent deformation. The Rockwell or Vickers hardness scales are most commonly used in the industrial blade industry.

Toughness on the other hand is the maximum amount of energy a material can absorb before fracturing, which is different than the amount of force that can be applied. Toughness tends to be small for brittle materials, because it is elastic and plastic deformations that allow materials to absorb large amounts of energy.

In general where the grit is being used to cut into other metals (which can include steels) the hardness of the cutting abrasive should be considerably higher than that of the target material.

Which comes to the third consideration, which is that steel abrasive can rust, and therefore, immediately after it has been recovered and washed, it should be effectively dried. This has proved to be more difficult to manage than originally anticipated, since, particularly where the particles are then stored for some time before re-use, any moisture present can create enough rust to “glue” the particles together. Which renders them effectively useless for further recycling and additional use.

So there are considerable pitfalls that can arise in making use of steel as a cutting abrasive, but where the jobs exist where it does effectively cut significantly better than the alternative (say in rock-cutting applications) and where the cutting zone can be shielded, and the particles rapidly recovered, dried and stored for relatively rapid recycling at an economic price, then it can be a productive way of reducing cost, while improving throughput. (And lest you think this is a new idea Gulf Oil did extensive work on abrasive jet drilling of oilwells starting in the mid-sixties, with some favorable results, but that is another story).

Waterjetting 15b - Making the Millennium Arch

At the time that we carved the Missouri Stonehenge, our abilities seemed limited to cutting only linear passes through thick blocks of rock. However, while this has an application in the quarrying industry there are also many applications where contour cutting to depth would find a market. We were challenged to demonstrate this when it became time for the MS&T campus to find a project to mark the Millennium.

Figure 1. The MS&T Millennium Arch by Edwina Sandys The piece is in two parts, the Arch in the foreground and the extracted figures form a second grouping near the building entrance.

As a little bit of a back story, Winston Churchill had come to Missouri in 1946 where he gave his “Iron Curtain” speech at Westminster College in Fulton. This led, inter alia, to the National Churchill Museum. At that time Scott Porter, a Rolla minister’s son, had gone up to Fulton and took a color photograph of the visit. Skip forward past the fall of the Berlin Wall and Westminster College had commissioned Edwina Sandys, the internationally recognized artist and sculptor, to create an appropriate sculpture to mark that event. The sculpture, "Breakthrough” was formed from pieces of the Berlin Wall that had been cut by a hand-manipulated abrasive waterjet nozzle to silhouette a male and a female shape, and to quote the sculptor:

In Breakthrough, from the blank former–Communist side, you see light through the male and female shapes, and when you walk through to freedom, from dictatorship to democracy, it’s as if you were living in a black-and-white world, and now you’re in glorious Technicolor.

At the Dedication Scott presented a copy of the photograph to Edwina, and they got to talking – long story short – the campus asked her to create a sculpture for the campus, funded by Scott as a memorial to his parents, and I became her “hands” in helping to carve “The Millennium Arch.”

Figure 2. Breakthrough, a 32-ft high sculpture on the Westminster College Campus – carved with a hand-controlled abrasive waterjet (Edwina Sandys)

By the time that the sculpture was commissioned the granite quarries in Missouri had re-opened and we were able to acquire three blocks of granite from which to carve the five pieces of the sculpture. One of the advantages of waterjet cutting, as both Breakthrough and The Millennium Arch illustrate is that the “cut-outs” are removed entire, and can thus become figures in their own right. The figures from “Breakthrough” are at the Roosevelt Library in Hyde Park, NY, forming the “Break Free 1990-94” sculpture.

Once the blocks had been brought to Rolla we decided to move them indoors, something we had to do manually as we wanted to continue cutting through the winter, and because the computer driven table that John Tyler and our students designed and built would be better protected inside. (Though we had forgotten that debris from the cutting would have enough energy to reach the roof). The blocks weighed around 35-tons each, and the first task was to trim the edges of the two legs of the piece, to a rectangular shape. Stepping motors were used to move the cutting lance along the first four sides of each block, then the pieces were moved outside and gently allowed, with timber block support, to fall over onto their sides before being returned to trim the last two sides.

Figure 3. Cutting the edge of a Millennium Arch leg.

Figure 4. Before and after picture - the block on the right is about to enter the cutting table, while that on the left has been trimmed to size/

Figure 5. Block laid flat under the cutting table. to allow cutting of the male figure (in progress). Note the heavy plastic sheet strips used to protect the bay.

The heavy plastic strips shown in figure 5 are heavy enough to absorb the energy of the flying debris from the cut, while being flexible enough that they will deform swaying and deflecting, rather than being cut themselves.

After the design had been finalized (we had cut a 1/12th scale model followed by a half-scale version to check the dimensions as we re-learned how best to cut this granite) the blocks were cut using the same concept of twin, spinning jets issuing from a dual orifice nozzle, and rotating at 90 rpm. Because the Missouri granite is stronger than the Georgia granite, the cutting pressure had to be raised to 20,000 psi. The granite was not as consistent as that of the earlier Stonehenge, and harder inclusions inside the rock were more difficult to detect as they slowed the cutting rate, requiring a closer monitoring of the cut to ensure that the nozzle was not fed forward too far in successive passes.

We had thought about the possibility of making the cuts through the granite using an abrasive waterjet cut, however single pass cutting would have been incredibly slow, and a test using a multiple pass system with a single non-rotating nozzle showed that after a couple of inches of cutting that the edge quality was beginning to deteriorate. With the prospect of this getting worse in depth, and the need to separate the two part of the sculpture after the cut this led to the decision to use the plain waterjet system that we were familiar with. It did mean that the figures ended up two-inches shorter than the holes they came out of.

As with the earlier Stonehenge the slots were cut in the block by traversing around the path one time, and then lowering the nozzle a third-of-an-inch and then repeating the pass. The slot was roughly an inch wide, to allow for variations in the crystal sizes on the edges of the cut, and to allow the nozzle to move around all the contours of the geometry.

Once the internal figure had been released from the surrounding leg we had to separate the two pieces. It was easier to slowly jack the outer leg up, first one end then the other. the narrow gap between the pieces restricted the tilt we could make on any one lift, but it took less than an hour to get the leg high enough that we could slide the figure out.

Figure 6. Raising the leg so that the cut figure of the female can be slid out from underneath, after which the leg is lowered back onto rollers to remove it from the frame.

The surface quality of the three Arch and two figure pieces had then to be adjusted. The surface was hand-polished for the inner surface of the legs and the figure surfaces. The rough cut crystal-outlined surface was first ground flat using special graded grinding disks, and then the final polish achieved with the industrial polishing disks. While it took 22-hours to cut out a single figure from a leg, it took us two months to grind the surfaces, which could have been done faster had we mechanized the process. Hand polishing was a poorer selection that I made at the time.

There were two additional problems with surface texture – the sides of the legs appeared too “regular” after cutting and still showed the striations from the individual passes down the walls. To overcome this problem we used a hand-held lance, at 20,000 psi, to retexture the surface, and this turned out to give a relatively natural –looking surface.

The capstone gave a different problem, since the intent was to make it appear as a natural shape, and yet it was, as delivered, very clearly shaped by the splitting wedges that had separated it from the massif. Again a hand-held waterjet was used to smooth some of the sharp corners and provide a rough contour for the piece, while the secretarial and other staff in the RMERC (Vicki Snelson, Diane Henke et al) helped mix up our own brew of glue and granite chips to fill some of the splitter holes left in the block.

Figure 7. Dr. Galecki re-contouring the capstone for the Arch.

The two vertical legs were erected, and then a template taken identifying their exact position. This was then set against the underside of the capstone, and two pockets were milled out two-inches larger on each side than the leg sizes. When the capstone was then lowered onto the legs these pockets allowed the legs to penetrate six inches into the capstone, and provide some additional stability to the stones.

Before the capstones were set, however, it was noticed that the waterjet finishing of the surface of the legs had shown where there were two weakness planes within the legs that might, in the millennia that follow, fail. To prevent this from causing the Arch to collapse three holes were drilled down through the legs, and carbon rods anchored and post-tensioned through the possible weakness planes. Carbon rods were used to prevent the problems that corrosion might otherwise, in later years, cause to the sculpture as metal might expand and fracture the rock more that support it.

(Those of us there then autographed to tops of the legs, before we set the capstone on them.)

After the capstone was in place the gap between it and the legs was filled with the same glue:rock chip mix that had been used elsewhere to fill undesired holes.

The two figures were installed on a separate plinth, some 50-ft from the Arch itself, and these two were anchored in place with carbon fiber rods that extended up from anchor points in the plinth through the lower legs of the figures.

The Arch was dedicated in the Fall of 2000, in the presence of both Scott Porter and Edwina Sandys.

Figure 8. Arch Dedication ceremony, Scott Porter is escorting Edwina Sandys, while I follow with Chancellor John Park.

Waterjetting 14c - Intensifying Cavitation

In this short section discussing cavitation, I have, to date, described what it is and the normal method for determining cavitation resistance, and some of the damage that can come from unexpected cavitation in civil construction. Most efforts are directed at suppressing cavitation, since it can do a lot of damage and cause machines to fail. However, for those of us who work in excavation and cutting, finding ways to exploit cavitation and enhance the damage it causes can be productive.

The initial paper, that I am aware of, written with this suggestion was presented at the First International Symposium on Jet Cutting Technology (ISJCT) by Johnson, Kohl, Thiruvengadam and Conn “Tunneling, Fracturing, Drilling and Mining with High-Speed Waterjets Utilizing Cavitation Damage.” The paper was given in 1972, and one of the demonstrations that came out of this was of a small jet, at relatively low pressure, drilling a hole through a brick. The penetration rates reported in that paper were relatively low in comparison with conventional tools, but with a jet pressure of 2,000 psi and diameters of up to 1/8th inch, the hole could not be made without cavitation assistance.

The early nozzle designs were designed to induce cavitation bubbles in the center of the jet stream.

Figure 1. Cavitation induction in a nozzle (Johnson et al ibid)

Cavitation is created by developing shear or tensile forces in the water. In the left-hand part of figure 1 the jet is spun so that a vortex is generated in the flow as it enters the narrowest part of the jet. This creates the bubbles that are then carried down-stream in the center of the jet flow, and hopefully collapse at the target surface.

Perhaps the most advanced versions of this concept were later used by PetroPhysics, a company based in the Bay area of California. The Dickinson brothers used the aggressive, but spreading, jet coming from the orifice to clean oilwells and to allow them to drill holes into rock, without needing to rotate the nozzle assembly. The nozzle was a little more advanced than the initial design, but the jet had to drill a larger diameter hole, if the nozzle assembly was to follow the jet into the rock.

Figure 2. A detail of the Petrophysics nozzle

The great advantage of this tool was that, because it did not rotate, it could be used to drill long-lateral wells from the bottom of an existing oilwell out into the oil-bearing rock. This will significantly improve the penetration rate in many wells. (On a word of caution - there are other companies that claim to be able to do this, but some of them have less credibility than others, since the use of hose as a feed pipe means that the hose can fold up in the main well, suggesting that the bit is drilling, when it is not – there should be lots of cuttings and fine rock in the hole (making it more difficult for the drill to advance) if the drill is actually working).

Figure 3. Schematic of the PetroPhysics drilling concept.

Part of the problem with this system lies in the difficulty in ensuring that the hole diameter is of consistent size. When, in other work, we used a waterjet to drill a long horizontal hole, several hundred yards long, we found that the jet tends to preferentially cut at the bottom of the hole. If this is not built into the design (by tilting the nozzle up an adjustable amount) then it becomes very difficult to ensure that the hole runs straight, instead of curving increasingly downwards (and thus out of the target rock). Yet (though I never saw it work) it was reported that the drill was able to drill quite successfully in granite in California.

This design gave a broad path for cutting, and we were looking to provide a highly focused cutting stream, so the design suggested in the right-side of figure 1 seemed more attractive, and perhaps easier to construct. One of the thoughts in choosing this was that, as the jet hits a target, the reverse flow on rebound will protect the surface from some of the bubbles, whereas if the bubbles are in the center of the jet, then that lateral flow will force collapse against the surface.

Figure 4. The rebounding jet can protect the target from the collapse of cavitation bubbles, or focus their collapse if they are in the center of the jet.

But if a small, flat-ended probe is placed in the right place within the nozzle, then the flow of water past it will induce cavitation in the center of the stream, which is the object.

Figure 5. Sketch showing the location of the centerbody within the nozzle.

Note that the centerbody has to be back from the front of the orifice. The reason for this is that if it is not, then the vacuum pulled on the tip will be sufficient to drag air through the jet, so that all the probe will do is break the jet into droplets. (And we can prove that isn’t the case otherwise, as I will describe next time).

Figure 6. Relative change in erosion power of the cavitation as a function of the distance from the front of the tip to the face of the nozzle.

Even without this central probe in the nozzle it is possible for cavitation to occur, and bubbles to collapse, within the nozzle body. Doug Wright of StoneAge has shown that this can be quite severe, degrading nozzle performance significantly.

Figure 7. Cavitation damage within the throat of two nozzle channels (Doug Wright)

The simple designs that we used, pins held the parts together for alignment, allowed us to cavitate a waterjet at pressures up to 20,000 psi, at which the resulting stream drilled through a piece of alumina held close to the nozzle, and was able to drill (at a pressure of 6,000 psi) out more than 18-inches from the nozzle into dolomite.

Figure 8. Titanium probes showing the flow passages and the probe itself. Note the progression of cavitation damage at points on the probe. These caused the tip to break off after runs of several minutes.

Although there is a great potential for further development, this area of development fell into disuse, partly because of the power that can be generated and used for other purposes, and I will discuss those, next time.

Waterjetting 10a - Beginning to cut

In the last few posts I have been discussing what happens under a water jet as it first hits, and then penetrates into a target material. In many cases it is recommended that the nozzle move slightly relative to the target during this piercing process so that the water escaping from the developing hole does not have to fight its way past the succeeding slug of water entering the hole.

Now it might be thought that this problem would go away if the nozzle starts at the side of the target and then cuts into it. But this depends on a number of different factors, one of the more critical being as to whether the jet is cutting all the way through the material, or is only cutting a slot part of the way through it. As with a number of other topics, I am going to illustrate some of the concerns using granite as the target material, since it makes it easier to demonstrate some of the points I want to make.

If you were to look at one of the many statues that have been carved from granite over the thousands of years since the rock was first shaped into an art form, the rock usually appears as a relatively homogeneous material. That means (to those who don’t work with rock) that the rock has the same properties regardless of which direction you test them in.


Figure 1. The Italian Carver’s Memorial, Dente Park, Barre, VT (From the Barre Granite Association via State Symbols USA)

However, if you were to ask a skilled quarry man he would tell you differently. Because of the way that granite cools from the molten state in which it is injected up into the ground, it picks up an orientation to the crystals, as they are formed. One of these orientations is roughly horizontal, and called the Lift or grain of the rock. A second is perpendicular to this, and vertical and is known as the Rift. The third plane, orthogonal to the other two is called the Hard-Way, because it is generally more difficult to work. These names relate to the ways in which the grains of the rock, and the cracks around them, align. They are virtually impossible for a lay person to detect, and a quarry man may need to feel the rock to tell you which way they lie. But they are used in splitting out the major blocks from the granite massif, and come into play in breaking the large blocks down into handle-able sized pieces.


Figure 2. The A) Hard-Way B) Rift, and C) Lift planes of crystal orientation in granite

If, however, you were to shoot a short slug of water at high-pressure at a piece of granite (and we used the granite from Elberton in Georgia for this) then, depending on which direction the pulse came from relative to the three planes, the amount of rock that would break around the impact point would change.

In an earlier post discussing the splitting that occurs when pressure builds up within the cavity under a jet, I mentioned that the pressure would grow cracks that already existed. And it is for this reason that when the jet impacts perpendicular to the existing crack planes, that the volume of material broken out is greater than it is where the jet fires along the cracks. This can be shown using the cavity profiles from oriented samples into which the jets were fired.


Figure 3. Profiles from the cavities created around the impact points where the jet impacted granite blocks at different orientations.

One can use this information if, for example, one wanted to cut a thin line in granite, where the cut should be made in the direction of the crystals, i.e. making cuts along the lines shown in the A plane of figure 2.


Figure 4. Linear cuts into granite along the lines shown in Figure 2.

In this set of cuts the jet is cutting along the favored orientation of the crystals, and the rock only spalls when two jet paths approach each other in the lower right of the block.

If, however, the cuts are made in a direction perpendicular to the orientations, i.e. in the B and C planes, then the results are quite different.


Figure 5. Cratering along the linear passes in cutting granite perpendicular to the Rift plane.

Where the jet strikes perpendicular to the Rift or Lift, then the pressurization under the jet is enough to cause those cracks to grow out to the surface, and cause spallation along the cut. In many cases this removes all the rock between two adjacent passes, even if they are more than an inch apart.

If one is to use the high-pressure waterjet system for slotting granite in a quarry, for example, then this can be a very useful tool, since by merely putting two jets on either side of the desired slot the spalling will remove the material between them, without any further jet action. If the jets attack in the perpendicular plane, then the jet has to be rotated over the cut to get the same material removal rate.

In most cases, when cutting in a quarry, because the rock does vary in structure, and grain size, it is better to ensure that all the rock is removed before the nozzles move into the cut, by rotation, but in smaller applications, such as where the excess rock is being removed around a planned sculpture, then enhancing the spall around the impact point can lower the time and amount of energy required in removing unwanted rock.

That is, however, a relatively specialized application, and in most cases it is desirable that the cut be clean, and smooth, and this requires the use of abrasive in the waterjet stream, and so this will be the topic of the next few posts.


Figure 6. Cutting through one inch thick glass, showing the cut through the side of the glass.

Waterjetting 2b - crack growth and granite sculpture

The last post in this series showed that the main way in which waterjets penetrate into materials is by growing cracks that already exist within the material, and I used glass as an example to show that this was true.

It is this process during which water penetrates into cracks, and then comes under pressure, either by the impact of more falling water (say under a waterfall in nature) or because the water freezes and then thaws, that causes the cracks in the rock to grow under natural attack, and the rock to slowly erode. As this happens the cracks slowly grow and extend to the point that they meet one another, separating small pieces of rock from the solid.

Within the body of a piece of rock the largest cracks that exist are normally at the boundaries of the grains of different minerals that make up the bulk of the rock. (Back in 1961 Bill Brace showed that the strength of a rock reduced as the square root of the increase in the grain size of that rock ).( Brace, W. F. (1961): Dependence of fracture strength of rocks on grain size. Bulletin of the Mineral Industries Experiment Station, Mining Engineering Series. Rock Mech. 76, 99± 103.) More recently, though still back in 1970, my second grad student, John Corwine, showed that it was possible to predict the strength of a block of granite, knowing the size of its crystals.

Which makes a good time to tell a little anecdote. Back when I was doing my own doctorate at the University of Leeds (UK) we were looking at how waterjets drilled through rock, and how that might be used to make a drill. We had already run some tests of different rocks that we placed under a nozzle, and gradually raised the pressure of the jet to see what pressure it took to make a hole in the rock. Tests on granite had shown that the jet (with a maximum pressure of just under 10,000 psi) would not drill a hole into those rock samples, and so the granite had been set aside. But, with the equipment just finished and yet having to go to lunch, I asked Dennis Flaxington, the lab technician helping me, to put a new sample into the rig so that we could run a test in the afternoon. When I came back I found that he had used a piece of granite. I made several disparaging remarks, at which point he noted that, having spent some significant time putting the rock in the apparatus, I should just go ahead and run the test (which normally took about 5 minutes) rather than being an unmentionable. And so we did, and as I posted earlier, this is the resulting hole in the rock, which we were now able to drill right through in a process that took about half-an-hour.

Figure 1. 9-inch thick block of granite drilled through by a 10,000 psi waterjet at Leeds University. It took over 30 minutes. (Summers, D.A., Disintegration of Rock by High Pressure Jets, Ph.D. Thesis, Mining Engineering, University of Leeds, U.K., 1968.)

How could this now work, when a single jet clearly did not penetrate into the granite in the earlier tests? The answer is that as we moved the rock under the nozzle (we were slowly spinning the rock under the nozzle, and then raising the rock, since at the time there were no high-pressure swivels available for us to use) the jet passed successively over the edges of the different crystals in the granite. As it entered and pressurized these small fractures, the pressure in the crack was enough to grow the crack and remove individual crystals along the jet path. By starting at the center, and taking successive passes around the axis a large depression was cut into the surface, and the rock could then be raised, and a second smaller layer removed. Repeating this slowly removed the rock in front of the nozzle, and at the end of the test we had drilled through 9 inches of granite.

From this experience, over time we went on to cut, for a University, a lot of granite. Obviously, to cut at a competitive rate we had to cut at a higher pressure that just 10,000 psi. But, after showing that we could cut Georgia granite at a competitive rate in tests run at 15,000 psi down in Elberton, Georgia, Dr. Marian Mazurkiewicz and I led a group of our students in cutting 53 blacks of that granite to form the MS&T Stonehenge that now sits on the University campus.

Figure 2. View of the Stonehenge at Missouri University of Science and Technology, the vertical blocks are some 11 ft tall. The entire sculpture was cut by high pressure water jets operating at between 12,500 and 15,000 psi. (MS&T RMERC ).

Cutting commercially is not quite as simple as it might appear, since larger blocks such as those shown in Figure 2 will contain rock that varies quite significantly in properties as the cuts progress. In the Stonehenge case the rock came from close to the top of the quarry, and the cracks in the rock were quite well defined. Some fifteen years later we were fortunate enough to be asked to cut a second sculpture, but this time working with the internationally acclaimed artist, Edwina Sandys. Edwina had designed a sculpture for the campus, the Millennium Arch, which required that we cut two figures from blocks of Missouri granite, and polish them to create one group, while using the original pieces as part of an Arch that would stand some 50 ft away.

Figure 3. The Millennium Arch at Missouri University of Science and Technology. (Each vertical leg of the Arch is some 15 ft long, and the figures removed and in the background, are 11 ft tall). Better images can be found here.

The vertical legs were first cut to shape, and then the figures cut out from them. In order to contain the crack growth to limit the amount of material removed the cutting lance had two jets inclined outwards and the lance was rotated at around 90 rpm, as the lance made repeated passes over the surface, removing between a quarter and half-an-inch of rock on each pass, until it had penetrated through the rock. It took 22 hours of cutting to isolate the female figure from the host block. The slot width was around an inch, and there was some significant difficulty in cutting this slot as the quality of the rock changed within the blocks being cut. (The problem was solved by raising the cutting pressure).

Figure 4. Partial cut for one of the figures of the Millennium Arch, checking the depth.

This second sculpture illustrates both an advantage and a problem for the use of waterjets in cutting rock pieces. Use of the water gives a relatively natural look to the rock, although the vertical surfaces of the arch and the capstone were all actually “textured” to look natural using a hand-held lance at 15,000 psi. (The rock is a little harder than that from Georgia and most of the cutting took place at around 18,000 to 20,000 psi). But when the polished surfaces for the inside of the verticals and the isolated figures were prepared the rough initial surface required much more time to grind and polish flat, than a smoother initial cut would have needed.

Because water alone penetrates along crystal and grain boundaries in the rock the surface left is relatively rough. This gets to be even more of a problem if waterjets are used to cut wood. Here the “grain” boundaries are the fibers in the wood structure. Thus when a relatively low pressure jet (10,000 pai) cuts into the wood, it penetrates between the fibers and the cut quality is very poor. One of the first things I have asked students to do, when given the use of a high pressure lance for the first time, was to write their name on a piece of plywood. Here is an example:

Figure 5. Student name written with a high-pressure jet into plywood. Note that areas of the wood around the jet path are lifted by water getting into the ply beneath the surface layer, and that part of the top ply between cuts is removed in places.

I thought about having you guess the student name, Steve, but this is one of the more legible ones. (Female students generally cut the letters one at a time and were more legible, male students tried to write the whole name at once).

There are many similar examples that I could use to illustrate that, while there are tasks where waterjets alone work well, when it comes to precision cutting, then adding a form of sand to the jet stream to provide a much more limited range to the cutting zone can give a considerable advantage, and so the field of abrasive waterjet cutting was born, and discussion of that topic will lead, in time, to a whole series of posts.

Drilling for Geothermal Energy

Just as the thread on my TOD post on Drilling was winding down, horizonstar posted a comment about the tools that Potter Drilling are developing for geothermal drilling, with $4 million worth of help from Google. The comment takes you to a Grist post, from which I am now going to pinch the top illustration.

Hole in granite drilled by Potter Drilling using hydrothermal spallation . Note the fine nature of the pile of material removed)

Now (if you will forgive the vanity) I will add a picture from my doctorate, and an experiment that I carried out in 1967.

Hole drilled through an 8-inch thick granite block using a 9,500 psi water jet. (Figure 7.13 in The Book )

Now if you look at the two holes you might think that the top hole is the better, and more efficiently drilled. This post is going to try and explain why in fact it is the bottom hole that is better and will become one of two posts that I plan on writing on the relative performance of different tools in drilling, including ideas such as lasers, electron beams and the infamous REAM. There is a video of the two stages of the development of the Potter drill in an article in Popular Science from a couple of months back that is worth watching, since it explains their idea.


So why isn’t their approach a good one – well there are a couple of reasons, let’s start with the basic idea of breaking rock. Way back when the world used a lot of coal men still mined it using a pick and a shovel. In using the pick the miner would attack cracks in the surface of the coal and grow the crack so that he could wedge out larger lumps of coal, rather than picking out the coal in small pieces. If he did it effectively he would use something on the order of 4 joules of energy to mine each cubic cm of coal he mined (4 j/cc).

If you are breaking out rock from the solid the amount of energy you need depends on the surface area of the rock that you have to form to break the rock out. Assume that it takes 1 unit of energy to hold the molecules across a sq. cm of rock together. If I want to split the rock through that cm of contact I am going to have to break all those connections and (if the process is 100% efficient) this will take just slightly more than that unit of energy to make the break. Now here is the important bit:
Granite split into two 50-cm x 1 m x 1 m pieces

If I take a cubic block of rock that is say 1 meter in size, and split it down the middle I will cut through 1 sq m of rock over the fracture that I create. So with that same amount of energy holding the rock together(which we call surface energy) it will take 100 x 100 = 10,000 units of energy to make that one crack.

Now if, instead of breaking that rock into just two bits I broke it into a sixty-four, by making three cuts vertically parallel to the front, three cuts vertically perpendicular to the front and three cuts horizontally , then I would have split the rock into 64 pieces each 25 cm on a side, but it would have taken 9 cuts of a sq m each, and required an input of 90,000 units of energy to break the rock into the smaller sizes.

Block broken into sixty-four pieces with nine meter-square cuts.

Thus the smaller the size the pieces are broken into then the more energy that you have to put into breaking the rock to make those smaller pieces. Consider that if you are breaking the rock into a fine powder (as the pieces are with the hole drilled at the top) then if those particles are 0.25 mm on a side then the energy input becomes that much greater (4,000 cuts along each direction – 12,000 cuts total at a total of 12,000 times the energy needed if we just broke the rock out in two big bits).

So breaking the rock out in bigger bits is better – but how can we do this with fluids. Well this is the difference between the thermal process and a water-jet based process. With the thermal process what you generally rely on for the fracture in granite is a phase change in the quartz element of the rock that occurs at about 1300 deg C. This causes the rock to spall and has been used in the granite industry for initial channeling around the blocks to be quarried. (It is very noisy and fairly slow – around 14 sq ft/hour of production). The particles produced are very fine, and the energy required is around 12,000 joules/cc.

Water cuts into the granite in a different way, first penetrating into the cracks between the different grains of the rock , and then as that water wedge is pressurized by the following jet, forced deeper into the crack, growing it and breaking the individual rock grains away from the surface. These grains are much bigger (so the hole wall that you can see in the second picture is rougher), so the energy required to drill can be down in the hundreds of joules/cc instead of thousands.

The other advantage that waterjets have (if configured with sand in the water) is that they can drill through any rock the drill comes up against. That is not the case with the thermal lance, since some rocks just melt into globby messes when heated, and that has to be pushed away (ask the folks at Los Alamos about the nuclear powered thermal drill that they invented one time – they showed how to do that). And the question is pushed to where when you are drilling holes thousands of meters deep.

And just to respond to the point about pipe-dreams that was mentioned about these ideas being impractical – Gulf actually drilled to about 5,000 m deep with an abrasive waterjet drill about 1970. So these ideas do have some practicality. But I’ll return to that aspect in my next post.

Oh, and just to show that you can break out meter sized blocks - this was from when we were excavating the rock under the Arch in St Louis to put in the OmniMax Theater.

Breaking out thousand-pound blocks of rock while excavating the Omnimax Theater under the Arch in St. Louis