Waterjetting 35d - More video on hydro-excavation

In the evolution of the design of a waterjet/suction tool described in the last post I commented on the ability to balance the jets so that they did not spray material beyond the suction shroud. At the same time the shroud, to be most effective, has to be within a quarter–of-an-inch of the final surface, which means that the jets have to cut clearance for the head as it moves. Bearing in mind that the head will be manipulated around the excavation, this means that clearance has to be maintained on all sides.

Figure 1. Pass of a cleaning head over a 2-inch sand layer sitting on a set of concrete blocks that are not confined. The video shows the removal of the sand, without water escape.

I apologize for the quality of the tape, but these were research records that we were making of the experiments, merely to get certain data from them and they were not intended for transmission when made.

The second point I wanted to include was that of the ability to use the same design to cut a trench in harder material, again without the spreading of water beyond the trench. The material is a relatively weak cement.

Figure 2. Four passes over a weak cement to show that all the material removed can be aspirated at the time of excavation.

The tapes show how one can cut trenches in either soil or light rock fairly quickly and without making much disturbance outside the slot. Obviously the material removed can be collected in a vacuum truck and poured back into the trench after the trench work is complete.

In a later post I will show how this can also be used as part of a tool we developed to find, expose and then neutralize landmines.

Waterjetting 30d - Applying cavitation damage

Much of the work that we carry out with high pressure waterjets requires that they cut with precision and, in consequence much of the focus has been on controlling the stream of the jet to obtain the tightly constrained cutting action that produces this result.

Yet two of the larger growth sectors of the industry, the sub-divisions that have now been given the titles “hydro-demolition” and “hydro-excavation” don’t have that focus. Rather they seek to remove critical volumes of material, generally to some specific depth, but with less concern over the edges of the hole that is being created (provided water doesn’t penetrate the edge materials).

Depth of cut control is a little more of a challenge using an abrasive waterjet system since I have seen AWJ cuts that penetrated through feet of reinforced concrete and have mentioned the problem that new owners of systems sometimes run into when they run the nozzle for too long in a fixed position over a target and discover that the jet has not only cut the material, but also penetrated through the bottom of the holding tank, and put a hole into the underlying concrete floor.

Precisely controlling depth then becomes a matter of controlling the length of time the jet cuts on a surface, and to get to a fixed depth that will also depend on the amount of abrasive in the water, the jet pressure and the distance from the nozzle to the surface. It can also, to a degree, be controlled by the pressure of the surrounding fluid, although that is an interaction with the driving pressure that can become a little more complex.

In the last post I mentioned that when cavitation is formed around the outside of a jet cutting down through water which is itself pressurized (perhaps only because the jet is under a significant depth as water, such as for example a diver cutting apart an oil platform in the North Sea) then the damage from the cavitation bubble collapse occurs most intensely over a short distance from the nozzle. That distance changes with the cavitation number (simplistically the ratio of the pressure in the water around the jet to the pressure driving the jet itself), the volume flow and in a secondary relationship to the surrounding fluid pressure as well as other factors.

The latter impact of chamber pressure on the cutting range of the jet can be demonstrated with a Lichtarowicz cell, which allows one to see the jet as it cuts through surrounding fluid to the jet, and where, by adjusting the chamber fluid pressure the jet and cavitation cloud length can be extended to and beyond the sample, or reduced so that the jet barely reaches the target.

Figure 1. Backlit picture showing the cavitation bubbles forming and hitting the target.

The problem with generating this type of cavitation cloud as a means of drilling forward is that the bubbles are on the outside of the jet, and so as the jet hits and flows across the surface it protects the surface from the bubbles which flow on the outside of the lateral action.

The bubbles need to be confined against the target surface, and this is easier to do where the bubbles are formed in the center of the jet. The ways of doing this were discussed in an earlier post but can be summarized as being either by creating a turbulent swirl in the jet, or by placing a flat-ended probe into the jet stream.

Figure 2. Methods of creating cavitation bubbles in the center of a jet. (After Johnson et al)

Of these two methods, that using the central probe is more effective over greater distances, since the jet remains relatively coherent, while the swirling jet tends to broaden and lose energy after much shorter distances.

Tests of the central probe device showed that it could very quickly drill a hole more than 18 inches deep – at which point, unfortunately, the probe within the nozzle was itself destroyed by the cavitation action.

These tests were, however, carried out with nozzles with orifice diameters on the order of 0.04 inches, with the probe diameter being roughly half of that. Such designs are difficult to make and then align – ensuring that the probe is centered within the orifice throat, as shown.

In contrast with abrasive waterjet damage, the damage from an individual event is not as critically affected by the particle size nor by the main jet velocity. The collapsing pressure jet from a cavity collapse is at around 1 million psi – as Dr. Al Ellis theorized and we were able to confirm at Missouri S&T. This occurs with relatively little control by the surrounding fluid, or originating jet (which instead is more influential in controlling the intensity of cavitation generation and the location of the collapse).

This means that it is quite possible to use larger jet streams and still achieve quite destructive effects. In Johnson’s early paper on the topic he was using a jet pressure of 1,600 psi and able to drill through blocks of granite. The best advance rate that he could achieve at that time was around 3.5 inches/hour – which is not a practical value for commercial operations.

And unfortunately, for a while, this led us to be distracted into seeking higher and higher operating pressures to drive the jet, forgetting that this did not really change the bubble collapse pressure. It was only later, when we followed Dr. Lichtarowicz’ advice that we started adjusting the back pressure in the system and then we began to achieve useful material removal rates (on the order of cubic inches per minute).

However we did not carry out tests at larger flow rates, where we know, from the evidence at the Tarbela High Dam that much greater volumes of material may be removed, even at relatively low operating pressures.

At the Boulder Dam in the United States cavitation generated a cavity some 100 ft long and roughly 25 ft wide cutting into the rock wall to a depth of 40 ft. along the spillway during the course of a season, as reported by Warnock.

As a result of these tests it is clear that there is a considerable development potential for the practical use of cavitation – at significantly higher production rates than achieved to date, and over the wide spectrum of minerals (since the high destructive pressures exceed those necessary to disintegrate all natural materials).

It will be interesting to see when interest in the topic regenerates.

Johnson, Kohl, Thiruvengadam and Conn “Tunneling, Fracturing, Drilling and Mining with High-Speed Waterjets Utilizing Cavitation Damage.” First ISJCT
Benjamin T.B. and Ellis A.T. “The Collapse of Cavitation Bubbles and the Pressures Thereby Produced against Solid Boundaries,’ Proc. Royal Society (London), A262, pp.221-240.
Wanock J.E. “Experiences in the Bureau of Reclamation,” Cavitation in Hydraulic Structures – a Symposium, ASCE vol 71, no 7, p 1053. (Sept. 1945)

Waterjetting 29e - Back and Forth again

When the International Symposia on Waterjet Cutting (ISJCT) began (back in 1972) the uses of the tool were severely limited, both by the pressures available to customers, and by the limited knowledge of the capabilities of the system. Skip forward four decades and while the various tools available have widely broadened (the maximum pressure we have operated at runs well over a million psi) with cavitation, abrasive and polymer injection being just some of the more productive additions to the tool box, knowledge of system capabilities still lags in the general public.

The public wandering past a hydro-demolition site, where jets may be operating at 50,000 psi to remove damaged concrete – or by a civil construction site where hydro-excavation is digging a dry trench faster and safer than before, and the observer will likely have little clue as to the changes in technology that have taken place and the tool being used, since the jets are usually hidden by their surrounding shrouds.

Yet even in the industry that uses the tools – either for cutting aircraft parts, art pieces or for more mundane cleaning, the advanced technical capabilities of the tools they use are often a mystery to them.

Part of the reason for this, I suspect, is that the generation of scientists and engineers who pioneered the research that developed the industry have now, in most countries, retired. There has been a change in emphasis also for the research effort. There are many fewer opportunities for university teams to go out and demonstrate (as we did) that an abrasive waterjet system could be used to effectively cut a rock wall 20 feet deep within 50 ft of the Gateway Arch in St Louis, without any risk of the Arch crossing its legs. (Which was a major concern that the Park Service had when we did the work). In that project we also had to develop a 5,000 psi DIAjet drill to install rock bolts through 15 ft of dolomite, clay and chert to ensure that the walls remained stable (something not used much thereafter).

More of the research now (at a much smaller cadre of universities) is focused on enhancing the performance of jets in a much smaller range of applications, rather than finding and developing new markets in places where waterjets have not been used before. I will exclude the medical field from this restriction, since, particularly in Germany, new applications continue to appear.

What is also unfortunate is that the advent of the internet means that many of the earlier papers where, as with the case of hydro-demolition, the exploratory work was undertaken, are not easily accessible. And (writing as an academic who reviewed many theses and dissertations) few students go back much more than five years in assessing the previous state of the art.

As a result of this there is almost no effort to exploit some of the ideas that were developed over the early decades, where potential new applications were found, but which could not, at the time, be developed because of either technical constraints, or because (in our case) there were other more immediately rewarding paths to follow.

The movement at universities has seen high pressure waterjet systems move from the research laboratories into the machine shops of the support complex. As they thus become classified as “conventional systems” so there is less incentive to see them as places where innovation can bring the sort of rewards that can be found in developing other avenues of research.

This is a great pity since, although the industry has grown from being just a lab curiosity to an integral part of a number of industries (collectively doing billions of dollars of work a year), the range of applications for which it is uniquely suited have, as yet, only been tapped to a limited extent. As an example, the ability of waterjets to work in explosive environments to cut through different materials has yet to be fully recognized. Yes abrasive waterjets are used to cut the tops from oil and gas tanks, where remedial hydrocarbons pose a threat, but there are many other situations where – on a smaller scale – this ability could provide a number of benefits. (The coal mining industry comes to mind).

I remember watching an early demonstration of the use of a hand-held waterjet by a diver, as a way of cleaning barnacles and growths from an undersea platform. Previously the divers had to cling to the structure with their legs to give them support as they chiseled away at the growths with jackhammers. By putting a reverse jet on the lance, the diver could now float around the rig, removing growths without that sharp intrusion into his comfort zone. As I recall it took less than two years for the concept to sweep the industry, around the world, and I have mentioned before the reaction of one diver, who threw the jackhammer over the side of the rig with a profanity, after using a waterjet cleaning lance for the first time.

The above is another explanation for the focus that this site is going to have on some of the earlier papers in the technology over the next few months. It will try and provide a deeper explanation as to why certain things are done, based on the research of those earlier investigations, and also some pointers as to where we can expect the industry to move in the future. It should be fun!

Waterjetting 22d - more on shrouds

The use of a shroud to capture the water and debris from waterjet use, feeding it to an exhaust hose, that will then carry it away from the site, has become more universally applied over the last ten years.

There are, however, different ways in which this new combination (which has been given different names depending on the usage) can be applied, and how the components can be best combined for most effective application.

At the low end of the pressure range, feeding a 2,000 psi waterjet at 2 gpm into the soil at the entrance to a suction hose has created a powerful new tool for deep soil excavation. The technique, known as hydro-excavation, has a variety of different applications – one of the simpler demonstrations was shown by Hydro Spy here on Youtube.

The demonstration lasts some five minutes, and helps show why there is still improvement needed in equipment design, since the vacuum intake is not extracting material at a constant rate, but is only being fed by a hand-held lance that it often not cutting very efficiently, while at the same time the head is either buried in debris or being held too high off the surface to effectively capture the loose material effectively.

Figure 1. Components of a hydro-excavation system, the jet is breaking the soil into pieces that are they removed from the hole with the water, through the suction line. (Hydro Spy )

Because the two actions (jet fragmentation and vacuum removal) are separate they are both working at much less efficiency than if the situation were modified. For example, in the video, the lance is used to pry pieces of soil from the wall and too much time is spent with the lance away from the suction line or with the intake to the line buried and not removing material.

Figure 2. Frame from video showing lance being used to pry soil block from the solid – the suction line is not getting any water or soil at this time.

It is often forgotten that, in soils, the jet penetrates to maximum depth in about one hundredth of a second. Thus, to be effective it has to be moved over the surface relatively fast ( as it is in parts of the video) in order to be most efficient. This is, however, most often best achieved by driving the head mechanically, rather than relying on an operator to move the nozzle as fast as it should be moved. In a simple situation such as this it may be, for example, much more effective to use a dual-jet self-rotating nozzle assembly (which can be obtained from one of several equipment manufacturers) since these designs spin the jets over the surface more rapidly and consistently, so that the material is more effectively broken into relatively small pieces.

However in this section we have been discussing the use of shrouds and intakes to the suction line, and this design becomes of equal importance in ensuring that the system works at its most efficient. If the entry to the suction line in blocked because it has been run up against the bottom of the hole, or into a tight cluster of large pieces of material, then there is no production, until the head is lifted away from that seal. (Or if a short rod is attached to the bottom of the inlet to ensure that there is always a gap between the lip of the line and the bottom of the hole).

On the other hand if the inlet is lifted too far away from the surface, say more than half-an-inch, then the suction force pulling the pieces into the line becomes significantly less effective and production will again suffer. This is made worse where the floor of the opening is very uneven, since this makes it more difficult to maintain the gap at which the suction is most effective.

It becomes more effective – whether removing soil in this way or removing paint from a ship hull at much higher pressures – to integrate the jet action with the design of the shroud/inlet to the suction line. The two cases are otherwise different in that in the softer material the jets are cutting quite deeply (though hopefully no more than about half-an-inch at a time) into the soil, which causes the jet to rebound back up into the shroud body and makes water and debris collection relatively easy.

This is not the case with the removal of paint and coatings, where the layers are often relatively thin, and the jet will rebound, often parallel with the underlying steel that it does not have the power to penetrate. (Nor is this desirable, other than for the jet to penetrate into any corrosion pits in the surface and clean them).

With thin coating removal, since the surface is otherwise relatively smooth, the shroud can be mounted on wheels that allow the operator to set the gap thickness between the shroud and the surface. (The closer the shroud lip to the surface, the higher the force that holds the shroud to that surface, but also the higher the force that the motors must apply to move the shroud against the friction forces that are created). The suction force in this case will hold the shroud against vertical walls and even against the underside of ships hulls, bridge decks, etc. provided that the geometry of the head is optimized to provide that balance of enough suction to hold the head, without it getting too high for the trouble the traversing motors).

There is one other, final thought, in those cases where the jets are cutting into and along paint and other coatings. In some cases the coating can be best removed where the jet is attacking along the surface, rather than almost perpendicular to it, as is quite often the case in head designs. This can give a better and more efficient surface cleaning, but if the jets are at too great an angle to the surface, the operator runs the risk of seeing the jets carry the debris out past the edge of the shroud, making it much more difficult to capture and remove.

One way of getting around this problem is to incline the jet path within the shroud, so that at the distant end of the jet path within the shroud it intersects the path of the next jet around the design, which has sufficient force to stop the jet moving further out. We have successfully demonstrated that this does work in an application, where the jet was cutting relatively shallow grooves in the surface, and with greater penetration the jet will rebound upwards out of the slot, and more easily captured by the overlying shroud.

Figure 3. Showing how, by aiming the jet path into that of the next stream around the shroud the energy of the jets can be contained within the shroud envelope and the splashing outside of that envelope is much reduced.

Waterjetting 2c - using Nature's crack system

In this section (part 2) of the series on Waterjetting, the focus is on the way in which high-pressure waterjets grow cracks in their target. As John Field showed, even the presence of microscopic cracks on a glass surface are enough to initiate the larger cracks that lead to failure. In many cases, however, the most useful growth can be achieved if the cracks only extend to the point that they remove a desired amount of material. This becomes important where there are weaknesses and flaws in the material – such as the layers between plies of wood, or even Kevlar - which should not be grown as the jet cuts down through the material. And in a later article this topic will be a part of a discussion as exactly what happens as a jet drills a hole into a target. But, for today, I would like to talk about crack growths in rock and soil, both because it is one of the oldest ways in which water can penetrate into material, and also because it holds the potential to be one of the newest areas into which waterjetting is growing, and will likely further advance into a more significant business.

And to begin consider that, as water penetrates into the cracks in a rock, and grows those cracks slowly, under natural forces, rocks with minerals in them, will see those mineral particles separately broken out. The classic example of this is with gold. One of the ways in which the Forty-Niners found the gold in California was by panning for the gold particles in the rivers, and tracking the gold deposits back up-stream until they reached the original gold deposits of the Sierra Mountains. Not that this was the first time that water transport had helped in gold mining. One of my favorite stories to begin classes is to remind them of Jason and the Argonauts.

Figure 1. Movie poster for the 1963 film version of Jason and the Argonauts (iMDb )

It is a theme that has been made into a movie several times, (see, for example, here) and tells the story of how the Greek Prince Jason and a band of companions go in search of the Golden Fleece, and the adventures that he has along the way. Despite the mythical creatures the story is thought to be likely based on some measure of truth, with the voyage taking place some time before 1300 B.C. But our focus is on the fleece, rather than the voyagers.

Figure 2. Suggested path that Jason followed to get to the River Rhion in Georgia.(Google Earth)

Within the Caususus mountains of Georgia lies the modern town of Mestia, which was thought in Roman times, to be the site of Colchis, where Jason found the Golden Fleece. The reality is not quite as dramatic as the legend since, as the Roman historian Strabo noted

“It is said that in the country of Colchis, gold is carried down by mountain torrents, and that the barbarians obtain it by means of perforated troughs and fleecy skins, and that this is the origin of the myth of the Golden Fleece”

The torrents of water in the Svaneti valley outside Mestia, (Nika Shmeleva Google Earth at 43deg02’29.74”N, 42deg42’25.13E)

It is thought that the miners of the time directed the streams so that they flowed over the veins of gold and eroded out the particles so that the gold was carried down to the valley. Here it was fed through the troughs that Strabo described, and the heavy gold particles were captured as they tangled in the wool of the fleece. To recover the gold the miners would then hang the fleeces in trees, so that they would dry, and the gold could be shaken loose. Unfortunately as the fleeces hung in the trees they provided a tempting target for Greek thieves. (In a later version that I will write about in the next post the sheep fleece was replaced with brush that could be dried and burned to release the gold).

Water was thus, in one of the earliest “automated” mining processes, used to both dislodge and then carry the valuable mineral from the mining site The overall power of water to move soil has been used to wash away material for over a hundred years. In the 1973 War between Egypt and Israel the Egyptian Army gained a significant advantage in the early hours of the war by using waterjet monitors to wash away the defensive barrier along the edges of the Suez Canal, rather than using conventional mechanical excavators.

To deal with the massive earthen ramparts, the Egyptians used water cannons fashioned from hoses attached to dredging pumps in the canal. Other methods involving explosives, artillery, and bulldozers were too costly in time and required nearly ideal working conditions. For example, sixty men, 600 pounds of explosives, and one bulldozer required five to six hours, uninterrupted by Israeli fire, to clear 1,500 cubic meters of sand.

The quoted Sunday Times report of the time suggested that the Israeli Army had anticipated that it would take 24-hours to remove the barriers giving time for their Army to mobilize and arrive. However, using a set of five pumps per breech site the Egyptian Army was able to make an opening in as short as a 2-hour time, with the mobilized water cannon opening 81 breeches, and removing 106 million cubic feet of material in that first day of the war. They were thus able to initially advance into the Sinai with relatively little resistance.

The pressure of the water does not have to be high to disaggregate the soil, but large volumes were needed in that application both to break the soil loose and to move it out of the way. Moving the debris out of the way is an important part of the operation, and while, in the above case it could be just pushed to one side, in many more localized jobs, particularly in cities, that is not an answer. However if the soil can be collected with the water, then the fluid can help to move the soil down a pipe away from the working area. And, more importantly, if the soil can be captured as it is being broken loose, then both can be collected before the water has had a chance to penetrate into the soil around the hole, and so the walls of the hole will not get wet, and will remain stable and not fall in.

One way that we have achieved this is to rotate a pair of waterjets relatively rapidly (depending on the material the jet pressure can range from 2,000 psi to 10,000 psi) so that the surface layer is removed, and to immediately take this away by combining the jet action with a vacuum for removal. (In the initial trials we used a Shop Vac to remove both water and debris). This combination has become known as hydro-excavation, and will be the topic of a couple of posts in the future.

Similarly the use of high pressure to break an ore down into its different parts, so that the valuable mineral can be separated from the host rock at the mining machine, is become a new way to reduce the costs of transporting and processing the ore, and make mining more efficient. As yet this latter is still more of a laboratory development, though it will develop for greater use in the future, and there will be additional posts on this too in the future. But, in both cases, the use of waterjets to effectively rely on extending pre-existing cracks makes the systems work. In the next post I’ll write about a couple of other ways of getting enough cracks into the rock as ways of making it easier to separate and remove valuable materials from underground.