Waterjetting 32d - Cutting with polymer in the water

In the recent past I have written about the use of polymers in high-pressure jets and that they can significantly improve jetting performance, with no additional changes in the power or pump and equipment used in the work. This is because of two different effects that the polymers have. Firstly they reduce turbulence in the flow from the pump to the nozzle, reducing pressure loss and increasing fluid flow, for the same pump power. As a practical consequence since the fluid flow will be greater for the same pump pressure, this will require that a larger orifice diameter be used to handle the greater, or – for the same flow rate and nozzle diameter, the pump can be operated at a lower pressure.

Figure 1. Comparison between a conventional jet and one containing the polymer additive marketed as SUPERWATER. (after Glenn Howells)

This is not immediately apparent, since the jet carrying the polymer appears smaller, but this is due to the second effect of the polymer, which is to tend to glue the water together, so that it is not dispersed as easily by the surrounding fluid – air in this case. In fact, for the same pump pressure and orifice diameter the lower jet will be operating at a higher pressure (since there is less pressure loss in the line) and there will be more water coming out of the polymer-supplied orifice at a higher velocity. But because it is not spreading into the air, it appears smaller.

This will improve the cohesion of the jet as it moves away from the jet, and as noted in an earlier post, this means that the jet will cut to a greater range from the jet, since it maintains the required critical pressure further.

The impact that the more coherent jet has on performance can be seen where the jet is used to cut into two different types of limestone, one oolitic and one crystalline.

Figure 3. Depths of cut of the polymer-containing jet (left) and plain waterjet, operating at the same pump pressure, nozzle diameter and standoff distance (Glenn Howells)

Note that at the distance where the normal waterjet has broken into droplets (as seen by the nature of the cut surface) and the jet has barely enough energy to remove the surface layer, where the jet contains polymer it retains the ability to cut.

Further, and this is more critical where cut quality is more important, the jet cut is much straighter and cleaner than the dispersed and wider normal cut. This can be seen where a different, more crystalline limestone has been cut closer to the nozzle.

Figure 4. Change in the cut shape to a narrower, deeper cut where polymer is added to the jet stream (rhs)in cutting limestone. (after Glenn Howells)

The benefit of the improved performance changes therefore with the distance of the target from the nozzle, with the more dramatic improvement being seen as the target gets further from the nozzle. Looking at the data from the original work that we did in Leeds, back in the early days of this study, this can perhaps be better realized through the use of a 3-D plot.

Figure 5. Improvement in cutting performance as a function of distance from the nozzle and jet pressure.

Note that, in these trials, the polymer improved the jet performance relatively more at lower pressures and greater standoff distance. Part of the reason for this (in hindsight close to 50-years after running the tests) is that when the jet was cutting at the lower pressures it was closer to the threshold pressure of the rock and this any drop in jet pressure had a more significant impact on cut depth than occurred at the higher pressures, where the gain was not relative to such a low benchmark.

For a number of years, until our research took us into fields where use of the polymer was precluded for several reasons, we routinely used a polymer (generally Superwater, marketed by Berkeley Chemical) rather than Polyox because it gave a relatively consistent and significant improvement in performance plus, being a liquid, it was relatively simple and inexpensive to buy a small metering unit (about the size of a small case) which would feed the polymer into the water supply line to the pump at the required concentration – typically 0.1 to 0.3%.

It tends to work better in improving abrasive jet cutting when it is used with a Direct Injection of Abrasive (DIAjet) or Abrasive Slurry Jet (ASJ) system than with conventional abrasive waterjet (AWJ) systems. The reason for this is that the AWJ system has the abrasive fed into the water stream at the mixing chamber just before the jet leaves the nozzle to strike the target. Within the mixing chamber the abrasive has to penetrate into the waterjet stream in order to acquire the jet velocity, and to distribute across the jet and give an even cut on the target.

Where the abrasive is feeding in from one side of the jet and the waterjet stream is more coherent, it becomes more difficult for the abrasive to penetrate the stream, and if the design is not adjusted accordingly, the cutting performance can be diminished, particularly relative to the gain that can be achieved where the combination is carried out effectively.

On the other hand with the ASJ systems the abrasive is mixed with the water far upstream of the nozzle and the are already thoroughly mixed together, so that the added cohesion of the jet will help to provide the acceleration that the particles need to reach close to the waterjet velocity, and achieve the improved cutting performance required.

Where an ultrahigh pressure jet does not contain abrasive, the polymer can be of benefit as a means of improving cut quality – as evidenced from this comparison in cutting a shoe sole pattern, both with and without the Superwater polymer.

Figure 6. Shoe sole cut comparison with and without Superwater. Note the smoother cut, with less fraying of the back side of the cut with the polymer. (after Glenn Howells)

Waterjetting 28a - Cutting rock on a table

In previous posts I have written about the use of lower pressure water (around 10,000 psi) as a way of cutting through rock. From the time that we first made a hole through nine-inches of granite while I was a graduate student some 50-odd years ago the way that we have recommended that rock be cut, in a mining situation, has been to use lower pressure and higher volumes of water. This is so that as many natural fractures around the individual grains and crystals can be developed at one time as possible. However the result of this is that the cut progresses along the grain boundaries of the infrastructure of the rock, that a roughly edged cut is made, rather than a smooth cut surface. In mining applications this isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but when cutting counter tops and other ornamental structures for marble and granite surfaces inside a building then a rough surface is definitely not often required.

So how can a relatively smooth surface finish be created along the cut? One step,that works with softer rocks (such as some pink granites) is just to increase the jet pressure, while at the same time reducing the volume of the stream flow. Once one reaches the ultra-high pressure regime (which is, for this article, considered above 35,000 psi) and with jet diameters on the order of 0.01 inches or less, the jet stream is more typically going to cut through a crystal within the rock than to just work on the cracks that lie at the edges of the crystal.

Unfortunately there are sufficient cracks and crystal boundaries within the rock that it is not possible to ensure that at some point as the jet cuts down through the rock, and along the desired path, that it won’t find a crack at a critical length and alignment that the crack will break out a larger chip. This is less likely to happen within the cut, since the confinement of the surrounding rock acts to reduce excessive crack growth, but can quite often occur at the rock surface, particularly where there has been some earlier damage that has left larger cracks within that surface. (This includes heat treatment).

That, however, is a specialized case, and in the more typical situation an increase in jet pressure to 50 ksi will not, by itself, produce the clean edge needed. Part of the reason for this comes from the striation planes within marbles, which can offer an easier path for the jet to penetrate, as the cuts get deeper, rather than having the hole continue forward along the jet axis. To overcome these problems it is easier, with the ubiquity of abrasive waterjet systems, to instead change to add an abrasive to the waterjet.

Dimension stone (the trade name for the decorative rocks such as marble and granite) is generally through cut with slab depths that are less than an inch-and-a-half thick, although greater depths can be specially prepared. Often the slabs are polished before they are finally cut to shape. We found that preferable, since when doing the final polish with successively finer grinding wheels (used for example in creating the Millennium Arch) the edge stress that can be generated by the wheels themselves can cause chipping along the edge of the work. This, in turn, either requires a regrind down to remove the chip, or some form of repair, which we found it difficult to make invisible given the complex structure of the granite. This is particularly true when relatively narrow ribs of material are being cut. As an example, consider the cartoonish mining figure that was made some years ago.

Figure 1. Toon miner carved from 3-inch thick granite.

The front and back surfaces were polished before the figure was cut from the slab, given the extreme fragility of the edges of the pick, for example, which failed under very little pressure in several samples before one survived.

One problem with this approach is that the edges of the cut, while relatively smooth, do not have the polished look that the flat surfaces have. Apart from making the cut relatively slowly, in order to remove as many striations along the cut path as possible, one answer has been to use a spray on the rock surface which then gives the impression of having a polished surface, and as long as the object is kept inside the coating will likely remain. (When we tried this with pieces that ended up outside weathering removed that coating within a short number of years).

The problem with hand polishing large flat surfaces is that it becomes very difficult to maintain a truly flat surface over the entire block, and while the surface may end up smooth and polished, it will likely have some small undulations within it. It is therefore more productive (and, we found, cheaper) to have large flat surfaces machine polished before they were cut. One example of this was the sign that we made for the State Geological Survey. It was made in two parts, the lower part was a Missouri Granite, which held an upper half, carved from Missouri Marble, which was cut to the shape of the state.

Figure 2. Sign cut for the State Geological Survey

The lower granite slab was inset into two vertical grooves that were cut into the supporting blocks. The granite slab was cut to shape on our cutting table, with the inset cut out to hold the “toe” of the state. Because the granite was first machine-polished the lettering was etched into the surface using a reduced pressure for the cutting jet, and removing a thin layer of the surface, which was replaced with the black fill material to highlight the letters.

Figure 3. The Agency name was etched into the granite slab.

When it came time to cut the shape of the state in the marble, the block was first trimmed at the top (to help it fit into the table). A piece of plywood was placed under the rock before cutting to prevent any rebounding abrasive from hitting the under side of the slab and removing the polish from the surface.

Figure 4. The first cut across the marble, showing the supporting plywood.

The rest of the state had a contour cut along each surface, and when these were completed the slab was ready for mounting.

Figure 5. The finished slab, showing the state outline.