There was a story that is told in Mining Engineering classes about a tunnel that collapsed, even after there had been a whole series of tests carried out to make sure that the rock was strong enough before the tunnel excavation was started. In working out why the tunnel had collapsed some questions were raised about the tests made on the rock samples. It turned out that the testing technicians had received the samples and struggled to find good enough quality pieces of rock in the sample from which they could extract the required sample sizes to run the standard strength tests.
When they reported the results of their tests these predicted that the rock would be strong enough to stand, without collapse, for a long enough time for artificial supports to be placed under the rock and to hold it in place. But it was not that strong segment of the rock that failed, rather it was the rather more rotten rock that surrounded it which provided the weakest link in the tunnel wall. That material had been too weak to make into a sample, and the technician had therefore not reported the lack of strength.
Knowing the properties of a target material before starting a job is an important part of correctly forecasting how how long it will take to perform the cutting tasks required and, as a result, how much to charge for the work. And further to ensure that there is no unanticipated cost that will come from the use of the waterjet tool at the parameters planned.
These unintended consequences have, for example arisen in the past when a high-pressure waterjet system was being used to remove damaged concrete from the surface of a bridge. (As with the tunnel we’ll keep the bridge as an unidentified example).
In repairing a bridge deck it is usually required that the top layer of concrete be removed just past the top layer of reinforcing steel (rebar). This allows a good bond between the previous concrete and the repair pour, which also bonds to the rebar giving a repair that will last for some time. (More conventional repairs leave a weakened joint between the repair and the old concrete which fails more rapidly in many cases).
However the waterjet system is only discriminatory to some extent. The jet pressure can be set so that it will only remove damaged concrete, for example, but does not have sufficient pressure to remove healthy (and less cracked) material. But if the material is weaker than expected, or the damage extends further into the deck than was expected, then the waterjet system will continue to remove damaged concrete, even if this means it ends up removing material all the way through the deck. This can be a real problem, given the extra money and time that must now be spent in replacing that additional concrete, and ensuring that full integrity is restored to the deck. This additional cost can be more than the price of the original repair work, and do serious damage to the economic health of the waterjet company. Unfortunately with many of the systems today becoming more and more automated, it requires close attention the machine at all times to ensure that only the required amount of material is removed and no more.
One solution to the problem is, at least initially, the very opposite of what you might think would be the best answer. It is to increase the pressure of the jets removing the material. For a system with the same horsepower as the machine that was being used first, this means that the amount of water used will be less, and the nozzle diameters will, as a result, also shrink in size.
The smaller jet diameters and higher pressures mean that the cutting distance of the jets themselves will become shorter, as the jet decays more rapidly with distance. (To give an extreme example a 1200 psi jet at a diameter of about an inch-and-a-half can throw a jet about 125 ft. At 50,000 psi and at a diameter of about 0.005 inches the range of the jet is usually less than 2 inches*.) Within their effective range, the higher pressure jets will cut much faster, and so it is possible, by mounting the cutting nozzles in an array that spins around a common axis, to rapidly clean a swath of material (say up to 2 ft in width) as the head moves across a traffic lane at an advance rate of roughly 1 pass a minute as it moves up over the bridge. The higher rotational speeds will also restrict the depth to which the jets can cut on a single pass, so that the depth of material removed can be relatively accurately programmed into the machine by adjusting some of the operating controls. (After first finding out what the best parameters will be for THAT bridge concrete in a small test area off the main work site).
There is an additional advantage to using the higher pressures, and that comes with the smaller volumes of water that will be required to take the damaged layer of concrete from the surface. This water will be contaminated by the different fluids that may have soaked into the bridge over time, and by the corrosion products of the deterioration. For these reasons all the debris and water from the demolition operation will have to be collected, removed and properly (and expensively) disposed of. The higher the volume of water then the greater the collection and disposal cost, and the lower water volumes needed with higher pressures will thus carry a lower disposal price.
The example given here is for the removal of damaged concrete from bridge decks and garage floors, but the underlying principle also applies in the milling of pockets into materials of differing composition, where a controlled depth of cut needs to be held, even if the material strength changes.
*The word “usually” is used since there are ways of increasing the jet throw to several thousand orifice diameters.
Showing posts with label jet diameter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label jet diameter. Show all posts
Monday, January 26, 2015
Friday, September 19, 2014
Waterjetting 25b - range with abrasive
In the last post I wrote about the impact of smaller jet diameters, and higher pressures, in truncating the range over which a waterjet is effective. The same is true, to an extent, when one adds abrasive to the water.
Our “green tube” test has been described in earlier posts, where the distance over which particles settle out of the jet provide a measure of how much energy they were given. However it is not that simple to interpret the results from these tests. The reason is that, as with a plain waterjet, the range of the particles is controlled to a degree by the size of the individual grain. Why is this? Well this series tries to keep formulae to a minimum, but one is needed in the answer to that question.
The origin comes from our friend Newton, whose Laws have come down to us over the centuries, and the second of which states:
Force = mass x acceleration
Consider that when an initially stationary particle is sitting in a jet stream, the force being applied to it by that jet is equal to the pressure of the jet, multiplied by the area over which the pressure is applied. If for simplicity we assume that the particle is spherical, then the area over which the pressure is applied (assuming that the particle is centralized within the jet stream) is equal to the pressure multiplied by the cross-sectional area, which is given by the product of the square of the radius multiplied by pi.
On the other hand the mass of the particle is related to the volume, which is in a cubic relationship with the radius. Thus if these two terms are substituted in the equation above, and combining all the non-radial terms into a constant results in an equation where:
Acceleration x radius cubed x constant = pressure x radius squared x constant
Rewriting this gives:
Acceleration = (1/radius) x pressure x constant.
This means that larger particles have smaller accelerations for a given pressure, while smaller ones accelerate faster.
However, and this pertains to the results we saw from the green tube tests, just as the smaller particles are accelerated faster while in the jet stream as it passes through the nozzle assembly, so those smaller particles will decelerate faster when having to travel through the relatively stationary air outside of the nozzle.
Thus if you are, for example, using a smaller jet flow (and smaller jet orifice in consequence) then the normal practice is also to reduce the size of the focusing tube, and – to otherwise keep the system practical – to also reduce the size of the abrasive particles fed into the system.
However, while this gives a better cutting effect immediately under the nozzle (hence the widespread recommendation to restrict the standoff distance between the nozzle and the target to about a quarter-of-an-inch) there is a more rapid decline in the speed of the particles as they move away from the nozzle. The net result is a shorter range for the jet, and a shorter cutting depth in consequence.
There is a small caveat to holding this as an absolute conclusion. Back in the days of the U.S. Bureau of Mines Dr. George Savanick showed that where an abrasive jet could be held within a relatively narrow slot, as it cut down, that the walls of the slot tended to concentrate the jet, and thus extend its range beyond that achieved if the jet were, for the sake of example, just cutting through a piece. Thus, when not through-cutting the part, there will be some extension of the jet range, and this has to be considered when setting the operating parameters for a particular job.
Which brings us back to defining the optimum size of the operating plant required to complete a given job, and a resolution of the optimum parameters for carrying out the job.
As I have noted before, this is not a simple and straightforward choice. Proponents of different operating systems will advocate different solutions based on the units that they are most familiar with. And there are arguments that can be made for different choices. However, in making the choice of the best system to use, one must be aware of the limitations (as well as the benefits) of the different choices that might be available.
Consider that a lower pressure, higher flow rate system might use larger particles, and thus be able to cut through a target plate of a given thickness with better speed than a higher-pressure, lower flow rate alternative. However were the target to be of a thinner stock where the range of the jet is not that critical, then the higher pressure system may well give the better performance (given, inter alia, that it will also use less abrasive and water).
Making a selection as to the better operating system, therefore, requires a clear understanding of the different modes in which the system is likely to be used. Will it be for relatively thin materials, where high precision and narrow cuts are required, but the material need not necessarily be through-cut. Or is the system one where a cut may be required through perhaps 30-inches of reinforced concrete in a reactor (of which more in a later post). In the latter case the lower pressure, higher flow rate jet, with the ability to use larger particles and sustain their velocity further, when further confined by the walls of the cut. The former condition would argue for the use of a higher-pressure, lower-flowrate combination, while the latter (as a generalized statement) would incline more to the lower pressure alternative. (And the terms are relative, since in the latter case we are likely still talking about pressures of around 30,000 psi or higher to achieve the depths of cut within the reinforced concrete.)
Much is written about having to make absolute choices in cutting, but in many cases it is only a matter of relative performance, with systems across a range of parameters being able to effectively achieve the goal. The selection of which system to use should focus more on the normal range of materials that one is expected to cut in the normal course of operations. (And slicing though parts of a nuclear reactor is not normal in most aspects of this business).
Our “green tube” test has been described in earlier posts, where the distance over which particles settle out of the jet provide a measure of how much energy they were given. However it is not that simple to interpret the results from these tests. The reason is that, as with a plain waterjet, the range of the particles is controlled to a degree by the size of the individual grain. Why is this? Well this series tries to keep formulae to a minimum, but one is needed in the answer to that question.
The origin comes from our friend Newton, whose Laws have come down to us over the centuries, and the second of which states:
Force = mass x acceleration
Consider that when an initially stationary particle is sitting in a jet stream, the force being applied to it by that jet is equal to the pressure of the jet, multiplied by the area over which the pressure is applied. If for simplicity we assume that the particle is spherical, then the area over which the pressure is applied (assuming that the particle is centralized within the jet stream) is equal to the pressure multiplied by the cross-sectional area, which is given by the product of the square of the radius multiplied by pi.
On the other hand the mass of the particle is related to the volume, which is in a cubic relationship with the radius. Thus if these two terms are substituted in the equation above, and combining all the non-radial terms into a constant results in an equation where:
Acceleration x radius cubed x constant = pressure x radius squared x constant
Rewriting this gives:
Acceleration = (1/radius) x pressure x constant.
This means that larger particles have smaller accelerations for a given pressure, while smaller ones accelerate faster.
However, and this pertains to the results we saw from the green tube tests, just as the smaller particles are accelerated faster while in the jet stream as it passes through the nozzle assembly, so those smaller particles will decelerate faster when having to travel through the relatively stationary air outside of the nozzle.
Thus if you are, for example, using a smaller jet flow (and smaller jet orifice in consequence) then the normal practice is also to reduce the size of the focusing tube, and – to otherwise keep the system practical – to also reduce the size of the abrasive particles fed into the system.
However, while this gives a better cutting effect immediately under the nozzle (hence the widespread recommendation to restrict the standoff distance between the nozzle and the target to about a quarter-of-an-inch) there is a more rapid decline in the speed of the particles as they move away from the nozzle. The net result is a shorter range for the jet, and a shorter cutting depth in consequence.
There is a small caveat to holding this as an absolute conclusion. Back in the days of the U.S. Bureau of Mines Dr. George Savanick showed that where an abrasive jet could be held within a relatively narrow slot, as it cut down, that the walls of the slot tended to concentrate the jet, and thus extend its range beyond that achieved if the jet were, for the sake of example, just cutting through a piece. Thus, when not through-cutting the part, there will be some extension of the jet range, and this has to be considered when setting the operating parameters for a particular job.
Which brings us back to defining the optimum size of the operating plant required to complete a given job, and a resolution of the optimum parameters for carrying out the job.
As I have noted before, this is not a simple and straightforward choice. Proponents of different operating systems will advocate different solutions based on the units that they are most familiar with. And there are arguments that can be made for different choices. However, in making the choice of the best system to use, one must be aware of the limitations (as well as the benefits) of the different choices that might be available.
Consider that a lower pressure, higher flow rate system might use larger particles, and thus be able to cut through a target plate of a given thickness with better speed than a higher-pressure, lower flow rate alternative. However were the target to be of a thinner stock where the range of the jet is not that critical, then the higher pressure system may well give the better performance (given, inter alia, that it will also use less abrasive and water).
Making a selection as to the better operating system, therefore, requires a clear understanding of the different modes in which the system is likely to be used. Will it be for relatively thin materials, where high precision and narrow cuts are required, but the material need not necessarily be through-cut. Or is the system one where a cut may be required through perhaps 30-inches of reinforced concrete in a reactor (of which more in a later post). In the latter case the lower pressure, higher flow rate jet, with the ability to use larger particles and sustain their velocity further, when further confined by the walls of the cut. The former condition would argue for the use of a higher-pressure, lower-flowrate combination, while the latter (as a generalized statement) would incline more to the lower pressure alternative. (And the terms are relative, since in the latter case we are likely still talking about pressures of around 30,000 psi or higher to achieve the depths of cut within the reinforced concrete.)
Much is written about having to make absolute choices in cutting, but in many cases it is only a matter of relative performance, with systems across a range of parameters being able to effectively achieve the goal. The selection of which system to use should focus more on the normal range of materials that one is expected to cut in the normal course of operations. (And slicing though parts of a nuclear reactor is not normal in most aspects of this business).
Read more!
Tuesday, September 9, 2014
Waterjetting 25a - choosing jet parameters for range.
The range over which a waterjet is able to cut material can widely quite significantly, depending on a wide range of factors, including abrasive content. An earlier post described the way in which students in a waterjet class were shown some of the difficulties in assessing risks arising from the use of a waterjet, and the range over which it was dangerous. Simplistically the students first cut along a plywood panel to see how far from the nozzle the jet would remove wood.
Figure 1. By slightly tilting the 4-ft wide panel and then having students move the jet past the board along the left-hand edge, a measure of the range of the jet could be obtained.
However, after the students had decided that, for the 10,000 psi 0.03-inch diameter jet, the cutting range was about ¾ of the way across the width (i.e. 3 ft) they were then tasked to pass the jet, as fast as they could, over a piece of pork that was at least a foot further away from where they estimated the distance that the jet stopped cutting.
Figure 2. A piece of pork after being “sliced” by a 10,000 psi waterjet.
The pork was typically cut to a depth of over an inch, grooving into the bone at a distance that the student had previously decided was “safe.” It was pointed out to the class that the pork was a good simulator for human flesh.
The point of the demonstration was fairly obvious, but it does highlight that the distance at which a jet stops cutting one material because of insufficient energy, may still be quite a distance closer than that critical distance for other softer materials.
In one of the earlier scientific papers on waterjet cutting Leach and Walker plotted the drop in jet pressure from two different nozzle shapes, against the distance from the nozzle.
Figure 3. Decline in jet pressure with distance from the nozzle (Leach and Walker)
With poorer nozzle designs and in cutting many harder materials the critical distance at which the jet pressure falls below half the original pressure, and thus in many materials stops cutting, is at around 125 nozzle diameters. For a 0.03-inch diameter jet, cutting a distance of 36 inches takes the range to 1,200 diameters. And while that range is partly because we have significantly improved the fluid flow into the nozzle it relates, as noted, also to the strength of the material being cut.
One reason to mention this is that I have seen, both in photos and real life, people foolish enough to hold their hands in front of a 40,000 psi waterjet, as an illustration of the safety of the tool at even a short range. (Typically they were using jets of around 0.006 inches diameter with the hand about a foot from the nozzle). A slight increase in nozzle diameter, undetected by the operator, or a change in fluid content (such as by adding a long-chain polymer (such as Superwater) could extend the range of the jet several-fold, so that the unsuspecting operator might lose several fingers before realizing the change in conditions.
An earlier post described the work of Clark Barker and Bruce Selberg, who demonstrated that an increase in polish of the inner surfaces and a smooth transition path into the orifice could extend the cutting range of a jet in harder materials from 125 diameters to over 2,000.
Achieving a smooth flow path to the orifice is critical to superior performance, though – as I have mentioned before – it was at one time surprising to me how many contractors did not even have the nozzle insert mating with the end of the supply pipe. Rather, with the nozzle insert held in a holder, they just turned the latter until it was tight, not always achieving contact between the back of the nozzle insert and the pipe. In addition there have been many cases I have seen where the nozzle insert inlet diameter differs from that of the internal diameter of the connecting pipe Again this will interfere with performance away from the nozzle.
Assuming, however, that one has stabilized the flow into the nozzle, and that it is of the right shape, how can one increase the jet throw distance further? The obvious, and wrong, answer is to up the pressure that is driving the jet.
Why is this the wrong answer? Well, if one considers what happens when a jet shoots out into the air, as one can see in a high-speed flash photograph:
Figure 4. Flash photograph (exposure at about one-millionth of a second) of a high speed waterjet showing the structure.
As the jet travels through the air, so the relatively stationary air around the jet strips off, and decelerates, the jet in layers starting from the outside. These show up as backward pointing stringers flowing out from the main jet stream. As the outer layers are peeled off (as with stripping the layers from an onion) so the remaining diameter gets less until, as in the picture above, there is no jet left.
Consider that with a higher driving pressure that there is a greater differential between the air speed and that of the jet, and obviously the stripping action will occur more rapidly, reducing the overall range of the jet.
Now consider if, instead of putting that additional power into pressure/jet velocity one were, instead to put it into additional flow. Then there are more layers of the jet to strip away, and the differential is not as great. As a result, when one compares the performance of two jets one gets:
Figure 5. Comparing the performance of two jets.
Notice in this case that relatively close to the nozzle the two jets, cut to roughly the same depth, and in this range the higher pressure, smaller jet has advantages in that the thrust it applies to the holding tool is less, and the total amount of water used is also less (roughly 4.3 gpm rather than 7.3 gpm). However if one is cutting at a greater standoff distance between the wall and the target, then at about 4 ft from the nozzle (1000 diameters of the larger, 1500 diameters of the smaller) the lower pressured, higher flow rate jet becomes more effective.
This relative change in nozzle effectiveness with pressure and diameter was also reported from results at lower pressure when developing nozles for cutting coal in Germany.
Figure 6. Comparing the pressure profiles of jets at two different diameters and pressures, as a function of distance from the nozzle.(Benedum et al)
Note that here, again, at about 8 m from the nozzles, both jets are producing about the same impact pressure, while closer to the nozzle the smaller (blue line) jet has a better profile (at 0.78 inch diameter, and 1,300 psi) than the larger (black line) jet (at 1-inch diameter, and 1,000 psi). But at greater distances the lower pressure, larger diameter jet becomes more effective.
There is, in short, significant benefit to determining, before one starts, what the objective is and over what range the jet is expected to cut, since both will help decide what set of jet operating conditions will give the better result.
References Leach, S.J., and Walker, G.L., "Some Aspects of Rock Cutting by High Speed Water Jets," Phil. Trans. Royal Society, London, Vol. 260A, pp. 295 - 308.
Barker, C.R. and Selberg, B.P., "Water Jet Nozzle Performance Tests", paper A1, 4th International Symposium on Jet Cutting Technology, Canterbury, UK, April, 1978.
Benedum, W., Harzer, H., and Maurer, H., "The Development and Performance of two Hydromechanical Large Scale workings in the West German Coal Mining Industry," paper J2, Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. Jet Cutting Tech., BHRA.
Figure 1. By slightly tilting the 4-ft wide panel and then having students move the jet past the board along the left-hand edge, a measure of the range of the jet could be obtained.
However, after the students had decided that, for the 10,000 psi 0.03-inch diameter jet, the cutting range was about ¾ of the way across the width (i.e. 3 ft) they were then tasked to pass the jet, as fast as they could, over a piece of pork that was at least a foot further away from where they estimated the distance that the jet stopped cutting.
Figure 2. A piece of pork after being “sliced” by a 10,000 psi waterjet.
The pork was typically cut to a depth of over an inch, grooving into the bone at a distance that the student had previously decided was “safe.” It was pointed out to the class that the pork was a good simulator for human flesh.
The point of the demonstration was fairly obvious, but it does highlight that the distance at which a jet stops cutting one material because of insufficient energy, may still be quite a distance closer than that critical distance for other softer materials.
In one of the earlier scientific papers on waterjet cutting Leach and Walker plotted the drop in jet pressure from two different nozzle shapes, against the distance from the nozzle.
Figure 3. Decline in jet pressure with distance from the nozzle (Leach and Walker)
With poorer nozzle designs and in cutting many harder materials the critical distance at which the jet pressure falls below half the original pressure, and thus in many materials stops cutting, is at around 125 nozzle diameters. For a 0.03-inch diameter jet, cutting a distance of 36 inches takes the range to 1,200 diameters. And while that range is partly because we have significantly improved the fluid flow into the nozzle it relates, as noted, also to the strength of the material being cut.
One reason to mention this is that I have seen, both in photos and real life, people foolish enough to hold their hands in front of a 40,000 psi waterjet, as an illustration of the safety of the tool at even a short range. (Typically they were using jets of around 0.006 inches diameter with the hand about a foot from the nozzle). A slight increase in nozzle diameter, undetected by the operator, or a change in fluid content (such as by adding a long-chain polymer (such as Superwater) could extend the range of the jet several-fold, so that the unsuspecting operator might lose several fingers before realizing the change in conditions.
An earlier post described the work of Clark Barker and Bruce Selberg, who demonstrated that an increase in polish of the inner surfaces and a smooth transition path into the orifice could extend the cutting range of a jet in harder materials from 125 diameters to over 2,000.
Achieving a smooth flow path to the orifice is critical to superior performance, though – as I have mentioned before – it was at one time surprising to me how many contractors did not even have the nozzle insert mating with the end of the supply pipe. Rather, with the nozzle insert held in a holder, they just turned the latter until it was tight, not always achieving contact between the back of the nozzle insert and the pipe. In addition there have been many cases I have seen where the nozzle insert inlet diameter differs from that of the internal diameter of the connecting pipe Again this will interfere with performance away from the nozzle.
Assuming, however, that one has stabilized the flow into the nozzle, and that it is of the right shape, how can one increase the jet throw distance further? The obvious, and wrong, answer is to up the pressure that is driving the jet.
Why is this the wrong answer? Well, if one considers what happens when a jet shoots out into the air, as one can see in a high-speed flash photograph:
Figure 4. Flash photograph (exposure at about one-millionth of a second) of a high speed waterjet showing the structure.
As the jet travels through the air, so the relatively stationary air around the jet strips off, and decelerates, the jet in layers starting from the outside. These show up as backward pointing stringers flowing out from the main jet stream. As the outer layers are peeled off (as with stripping the layers from an onion) so the remaining diameter gets less until, as in the picture above, there is no jet left.
Consider that with a higher driving pressure that there is a greater differential between the air speed and that of the jet, and obviously the stripping action will occur more rapidly, reducing the overall range of the jet.
Now consider if, instead of putting that additional power into pressure/jet velocity one were, instead to put it into additional flow. Then there are more layers of the jet to strip away, and the differential is not as great. As a result, when one compares the performance of two jets one gets:
Figure 5. Comparing the performance of two jets.
Notice in this case that relatively close to the nozzle the two jets, cut to roughly the same depth, and in this range the higher pressure, smaller jet has advantages in that the thrust it applies to the holding tool is less, and the total amount of water used is also less (roughly 4.3 gpm rather than 7.3 gpm). However if one is cutting at a greater standoff distance between the wall and the target, then at about 4 ft from the nozzle (1000 diameters of the larger, 1500 diameters of the smaller) the lower pressured, higher flow rate jet becomes more effective.
This relative change in nozzle effectiveness with pressure and diameter was also reported from results at lower pressure when developing nozles for cutting coal in Germany.
Figure 6. Comparing the pressure profiles of jets at two different diameters and pressures, as a function of distance from the nozzle.(Benedum et al)
Note that here, again, at about 8 m from the nozzles, both jets are producing about the same impact pressure, while closer to the nozzle the smaller (blue line) jet has a better profile (at 0.78 inch diameter, and 1,300 psi) than the larger (black line) jet (at 1-inch diameter, and 1,000 psi). But at greater distances the lower pressure, larger diameter jet becomes more effective.
There is, in short, significant benefit to determining, before one starts, what the objective is and over what range the jet is expected to cut, since both will help decide what set of jet operating conditions will give the better result.
References Leach, S.J., and Walker, G.L., "Some Aspects of Rock Cutting by High Speed Water Jets," Phil. Trans. Royal Society, London, Vol. 260A, pp. 295 - 308.
Barker, C.R. and Selberg, B.P., "Water Jet Nozzle Performance Tests", paper A1, 4th International Symposium on Jet Cutting Technology, Canterbury, UK, April, 1978.
Benedum, W., Harzer, H., and Maurer, H., "The Development and Performance of two Hydromechanical Large Scale workings in the West German Coal Mining Industry," paper J2, Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. Jet Cutting Tech., BHRA.
Read more!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
