Waterjetting 32c - more tests with polymers

In the last post on this topic I pointed out that one of early drivers to the use of long-chain polymers in water came from the reduction in friction that it provided to fluid flow through long pipes. In many instances this has been the driving force for the selling of the product, and in industries such as oil well drilling and fracking the reduction in friction down long relatively small diameter drilling pipe has been a significant selling argument.

The cohesion of the jet, once it leaves the nozzle, is a secondary consideration in overall economics, yet in some applications, such as the cleaning of down-hole completion screens, the ability of a polymer-laden waterjet to penetrate through the pressurized fluid in an oil well to reach and clean the screen has been the main reason that the market developed.

Figure 1. Improved jet power underwater when polymer is added (after Zublin)

One of the first steps to be addressed was the practical considerations as to how we got the polymer into fluid that made up the jet stream. The original polymer that I used was polyethylene oxide (Polyox) which was marketed in the form of small prills of chemical. The problem that we were then faced with is that, when these are just dumped into a container full of water, that the outer edge of each prill soaked up some water, became gel-like and adhesive, and stuck to the next particle, in a way that made a large collective lump that was very difficult to dissolve into the surrounding water flow. Even when the particles were fed in slowly into a fluid mixer the particles initially tended to concentrate in one layer of liquid, which only slowly dispersed into the main body of the fluid. That concentrated polymer has a number of interesting properties.

Figure 2. Lifting a thick concentration of polymer from a bucket by hand.

For example it can be thick enough that one can grab it with one's fingers and lift it that way out of the bucket, as the picture above shows, or it can cause a unique problem in a mixing tank.

The polymer can wind up around the mixing paddle shaft and work its way up the shaft until it hits the retaining screw at the top. It then piles up at this point until it reaches a critical mass, when a tendril can be thrown out of the tank, through the centrifugal force exerted through rotation of the paddle shaft. The tendril falling outside the tank falls to the floor, which is lower than the fluid in the tank, and thus the concentrated layer of polymer is drawn up the inside of the tank, over the side and down the outside of the tank since it is still attached to the escaping tendril. The result clearly showed that liquid could flow uphill, when pulled by the cohesion inherent in the high concentration polymer.

This, in turn, gives either a disadvantage (if you are using this in a factory) or an advantage to the use of the polymer. The reason comes from the fluid nickname – Slippery Water.” The addition of the polymer, while reducing friction in the pipe, also reduces it between a person’s shoe and the floor, and thus it becomes a hazard in the workplace, since it increases the risk of slipping. It has the impressive title Anti Traction Mobility Denial System . We used to call it Banana water, but that seems to have faded from use.

The need to reach the very low concentrations of polymer that are all that is necessary to enhance jet cutting required a better way of mixing, The recommended answer was to briefly suspend the particles in a suspension of isopropyl alcohol (swirling it in a cup worked well) and then dumping it into the tank in a way that ensured that the individual prills were distributed away from one another. And while this worked, it was somewhat cumbersome and worked well only when mixing up individual batches of water – useful in a laboratory but not so much in a factory that must operate steadily for a full shift.

A number of different chemical liquid additives, most particularly polyacrylamides and derivatives of guar gum, have been tested, with the original work (carried out with the help of Dr Jack Zakin) being carried out in special section of the Baxter Springs plant where we could photograph jets at one-millionth of a second in order to study their structure. To do that we set the system up so that the jet was back-lit, so that we could determine how solid the core jet was, and used a high-speed strobe to illuminate the jet for the short-time needed to freeze the jet motion, leaving the camera shutter open for that time. This meant that the room was totally dark, and since the tests were carried out in the middle of summer, it made for an interesting couple of weeks.

Figure 3. Improved cohesion of a 30,000 psi jet when polymer is added (lower picture) the jet range shown in the picture is about 8 inches.

We also ran a pressure transducer across the different jets, at different standoff distances, so that, for the most promising additives, we could measure the differences in impact pressure and jet cohesion as the transducer moved away from the nozzle. The results were reported in the Proceedings of the 3rd ISJCT with the different chemicals tested ranked according to their ability to improve jet cohesion and reduce jet spread.

One of the problems with some of the additives is that they are temperature sensitive, and the jet was coming from the nozzle at temperatures between 95 and 115 deg Fahrenheit (it was a hot summer and the water reservoir was not chilled). This was not recognized at the time, and it did have some impact on the performance of some of the chemicals, which also showed a tendency to rapidly age once mixed, due to the storage conditions. Nevertheless the results showed that while Polyox was the best compound, there were liquid alternatives that also were effective, and the technology has since switched to liquid additives of which I will have more to say next time.

Zublin, C.W., "Water Jet Cleaning Speeds - Theoretical Determinations," 2nd U.S. Water Jet Conference, Rolla, MO, May, 1983, pp. 159 - 166.
Zakin, J.L., Summers, D.A., The Effect of Visco-Elastic Additives on Jet Structure," paper A4, 3rd International Symposium on Jet Cutting Technology, Chicago, IL, May, 1976, pp. A4-47 - A4-66.

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.