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 35c - Developing a waste removal shroud - video.

The short videotapes in this segment show the evolution of a combination of a waterjet and a suction line as a way of easily removing soil or sand relatively quickly. It is a subject covered in an earlier post. These video clips show some of the tests that helped us to develop that design.

As mentioned in that earlier post the central tube connects to a vacuum line which removes the loosened debris and water. An earlier series of tests had shown that the suction nozzle had to be within quarter of an inch of the surface for the suction to be most effective. The jets had, therefore, to clear a way for this nozzle by cutting down through the material and pushing it into the mouth of the tube, before the tube arrived.

For the first test a single nozzle (out of the three on the head) was used at relatively low pressure.

Figure 1. Clip showing a single jet cleaning through 2-inches of sand.

However if the jet pressure is raised to cut harder material, then the jet has enough power to wash the material under and past the suction tube so that only a small part of the solid is picked up and the path fills back up with the washed sand.

Figure 2. A higher-pressure cutting jet does not give the debris time to be sucked out of the tank.

If three jets are used, but with the jets directed so that the paths hit each other within the suction zone this stopping each jet going further for a long enough time that the suction can remove both water and debris. 

 Figure 3. A three-jet combination where the jets are held within the shroud, leaving a clean path.

For those unable to see the video the configuration of the jets meant that they met under the shroud as shown.

Figure 4 The jet configuration around the shroud.

When this is combined with a protective (flexible) outer shroud the final result was a tool that removes material without over-spraying into the surrounding sand and destabilizing it. Leaving a clean channel.

Figure 5. Larger head design removing a 2-inch thick layer of sand.

In a subsequent post I will include (when I can find it among the 200-odd hours of material) a video of a similar (though smaller) tool cutting a clean channel into a soft cement, and leaving a clean path behind it, as shown in the earlier post. For those interested the parts for these cleaning heads were assembled from plumbing supplies from our local hardware store at a cost, per head of around a hundred dollars or so. (back in 1995 when we ran the tests).

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 22c - More on shroud design

Lowering the pressure in a hose connected to a cutting head, by connecting it to a vacuum pump, will pull a certain amount of the water and debris released from a cutting/cleaning event into that hose. However to ensure that all of this material is captured, rather than just a fraction, requires a little more care and effort in the system design.

At the end of the last post on this subject, I began discussion of the use of shrouds to help to contain the ejecta and to direct it towards the suction line.

Figure 1. Schematic section through a shroud of a device, designed to mine high-level radioactive waste.

There are a number of different lessons that we learned as we developed this tool, and this piece will discuss a number of them. During the development and demonstration of the device we had to use a simulant, and a relatively weak cement was chosen, which would allow us to design the tool to operate it where we could see it, and easily interact with it.

Figure 2. Cutting test under way (no shrouds were used in this early test series)

The easiest way to drive the nozzle system was to run the high pressure tubing through a fixture that contained a hollow shaft electrical motor. This saved a lot of space, and allowed the high pressure tubing to feed into a distribution manifold under the motor, which fed the high-pressure water to a set of rotating nozzles.

Figure 3. Test rig without jets to show the design of the test head.

In figure 2 the jets issue from two self-rotating nozzle sets, themselves fed through a rotating feed tube, itself rotating around a central axis, and driven through a belt drive and gearing.

Various different patterns were cut into the simulant, as the different heads were moved over the surface, with the pattern controlled by the different rotation speeds relative to the overall head speed over the surface.

Figure 4. Computer image of the jet paths over the surface, in one combination of parameters for a head similar to that shown in Figure 3.

The design of the head was aimed at producing a set of jet passes (given that each jet was slightly inclined to the surface) which would produce pieces of simulant that were never larger than half-an-inch in size. Yet at the same time the goal was to remove 4 cu. ft. of waste each minute. The larger we could break out the particles, the less cutting we would have to make into the waste itself, saving energy and time, while at the same time increasing the overall volume we could release in that time.

Figure 5. Deeper cut into the simulant.

At the same time if the cut depth was too great, then several new problems would arise, apart from the initially obvious one of producing particles that would be bigger than the suction hose could easily handle. (Though we overcame that hurdle by running the particles through a high-pressure jet pump that effectively cut any oversize particles down to an acceptable size as part of its design).

The suction line needed more than just the water from the cut, to be able to pick up all the debris from the cutting operation. Air had to be drawn in around the sides of the shroud, yet at the same time the walls of the shroud had to come down to restrict the amount of that air and keep the suction strong enough at the surface to remove all loose material. This is done by fitting a rim of bristles (such as form the head of a paint brush) around the edge of the shroud that come down to brush over the outer edge of the cut, stopping a lot of the material from escaping out from the edge, while limiting the amount of air that feeds into the shroud, and in this way holding the suction pressure inside the shroud.

Figure 6. Early test showing a square shroud with bristles around the edge as it cuts into the waste. (Part of a previous pass has been filled with clay as part of the test). The shroud was larger to ensure that all ejecta was captured – as shown.

During the tests we found that the metal rim should, optimally, be no more than half-an inch from the surface of the material, after it had been cut, to pull all the material from the bottom of the crevices. But the edge of the head has also to pass over the surface in successive passes. So that high points left by deep cutting (Figure 5) will catch on the head, and can interfere with the rotation of the head on the next pass.

The aim of the cutting head design was, therefore, to leave a relatively smooth surface (of the sort shown in figure 3) over the waste after each pass, so that the head could be fed automatically down a fixed amount without any risk of it catching on large peaks left by the previous cut. This risk could also be lowered a little by slightly tilting the head backwards as it moves over the surface, since this allows slightly larger points to enter the head, where they are attacked by the jets before the driving mechanism has to pass over them. This tilting also makes it easier for the head to clean right up to the walls of the tank, where otherwise the edge of the shroud would hit the wall and stop the jets from removing that last rind of material from the edge. (Though it could be cleaned by a subsequent pass with the head turned up parallel to the wall and moved over it in that way – though this wouldn’t capture all the material as easily, due to wall curvature.)

Tilting the jets at a high angle so as to cut material at the edge of the shroud was also a possible problem, since it made it easier for the water to escape from the edge of the shroud, and out into the main body of the tank, which was undesirable. But I’ll talk about that in a later piece. Let me just note that, when these factors were all combined no material escaped from the edge of the shroud.

Figure 7. Test late in development, where a head similar to that shown in figure 1 is cutting over waste, without any material being ejected from around the shroud edges.