Waterjetting 34c - Holes, pressure and delamination

If you ever go to an Old-Time Miners celebration, you may watch a group of competitors drilling holes through rock by hand with a cold chisel and a hammer. (You can see an example here). In the competition the contestant has 5 minutes to drill either a ¾” or 1-inch diameter hole as deep as possible typically using a 4-lb hammer. The best results will reach around 8-inches deep in that time.

It was the way that miners, and others, have driven holes into rock for millennia, but the skill that gives the highest penetration rate isn’t based on the person with the largest strength and fastest striker arm. No, rather it is the driller that controls the twist of the chisel correctly between successive blows, turning it just enough that the rock between the new strike and the old is chipped off by the impact.

By indexing the drill around the hole (the distance varies a little with rock type) the volume of rock removed by crushing under the chisel impact is magnified several-fold by the chip that is broken off to the side.

Figure 1. Relative volume of rock crushed, and chipped by lateral wedging to the next cut over.

Obviously the chipping makes much better use of the energy than would be the case if the driller just tried to completely crush all the rock using the chisel. However the chisel has to crush some of the rock in order to penetrate below the surface and get a better purchase for the chipping to be effective.

This makes sense in many other cases as well. And in order to make the best use of a cutting or drilling tool you need to understand how it works, how the target material responds – and how these two factors can be combined to give the best performance.

However, the use of a waterjet cutting tool brings a little extra to the table, since as the jet cuts down into the material, it will not, in the first few milliseconds of penetration, put any great lateral pressure on the sides of the hole, but will only focus on removing material in front and to an extent to the immediate side of the jet path.

The change and growth of the lateral pressure in the walls around the hole, and the widening of the bottom of the cut, occurs as it becomes more difficult for the spent water to escape from the cutting region, and the increasing turbulence of the water at the bottom of the cut starts to eat into the walls of the slot.

Figure 2. Widening of a slot at the bottom as the pressure distribution at the bottom of the cut changes. (Cuts were made at different pressures and AFR into granite, at a constant traverse speed) The view is of the end of the block showing the lengths of the cuts made down into the black as the nozzle traversed on the top of the block and towards the camera.

This build up of pressure at the bottom of the cut can become a problem. As the resistance to the water flowing away increases, so the water can penetrate into any larger cracks, or layers in the material, and apply that higher pressure to the plane of weakness. This can, in turn, lead to delamination of the part, or in some rock types it can cause some severe spalling around the impact hole, which may not be the intended result. (Or the sample may split.)

Figure 3. Spalling around an impact point as a jet penetrated into a block of rock.

The way to minimize this build-up is to make sure that the parameters of cutting (the traverse speed and pressure particularly) are chosen so that this does not occur (lower pressure, faster speed). Where this choice of parameters means that the jet won’t cut all the way through the part on a single pass, then it is usually better to plan on making a series of passes along the cutting path, keeping a relatively smooth wall to the cut, and reducing the chances of getting delamination.

This also holds true when cutting glass, although one has also to consider the size of the abrasive in this case since that will control the size of the cracks that are made in the sides of the cut, and the smaller these are, then the higher the pressure required before they will grow.

Figure 4. The effect of particle size on the crack lengths generated on the sides of a cut into glass. (The cuts were made from left to right with particles of SS-70 (0.0117 in diameter); SS-230 (0.0278 in diameter); SS-110 (0.0139 in diameter). (Shotpeener gives size ranges)

As a result in borderline cases it may be helpful to use a finer mesh abrasive to reduce crack size on the interface, where there is a chance of pressure buildup in the bottom of the cut.

Incidentally modern machines allow considerable precision in making multiple cuts – so that repeated passes can be achieved with relatively consistent precision. Perhaps I can illustrate this with a slightly out-of-focus picture of the insert cut from a counter-sunk hole using two passes of a jet in comparison with the pile of chips that resulted from the conventional removal.

Figure 5. Single piece insert removed from a counter-sunk hole cut with a chamfered edge, and removed as a single piece, in contrast with conventional chips.

However there are occasions where the ability to use the down-hole pressure to penetrate and break out the central core of material can be an advantage. One such occurs in mining applications where the rock is held under confinement. Where the jet first cuts a slot around the outside perimeter of the hole, this relieves the ground stress on the material in the core of the hole. That expands a little, opening the cracks in its structure. (In some cases, where the ground stress is high, this stress relief alone is sufficient to either break the core material into disks or to pulverize it into small pieces, but in these cases the ground is often sufficiently close to breaking already that most sensible folk would not be there).

I will return to talk about the break-up of such cores next time.

Waterjetting 20d - Proximate Jets

One way to illustrate the benefits of simultaneously cutting adjacent channels through a material is to artificially show how the jets would appear if they were simultaneously cutting through glass beads. An earlier post showed what water penetration around single jet cutting into beads looked like, and if a second image is placed close enough to, and at a slight converging angle, then one would get:

Figure 1. Simulated dual jets in glass beads using Photoshop to show the combination.

The figure shows that there is a zone at the bottom of the two cuts where the particles under the rib between the jets is saturated with water. The material has no strength, so that the returning water from both cuts has, as a result, enough power to remove not only the material under the jets, but also that between them. (Which is why you can’t show this in reality). The combined effort of the two jets produces results greater than the sum of their individual efforts.

There are a number of different applications, other than just in soil removal, where this can be considerable advantage. A number of rocks (coal and shale particularly) have weak layers within them, known as the cleat and bedding planes in coal, so that driving the water along those weakness planes, from two sides, will again liberate all the material to the free side of that pressurized plane.

But, at higher pressure it also works for removing of layers, such as, for example, the old paint, coatings or contaminant from a harder, typically metal, surface. A single jet, for example, can cut down to the metal surface, and may peel up the edges of the over layer along the cut, but there is insufficient immediate pressure to do more.

However if there are two jets cutting along parallel to one another, then if the two pressurized zones intersect (as Figure 1 shows) then there are free surfaces all around the intervening material, with a driving pressure to lift and remove it. Again the result is to produce significantly more material removal that could be achieved by two passes of a single jet. For this to work, however, the two jets must be close enough to each other that the pressurized zones within the material intersect. The distance over which this works varies considerably with the material being removed. In a well structured coal or a weak soil, for example, the distance may be measured in inches, in a tightly bonded paint it may be merely millimeters. Only testing can determine, as a function of jet flow rate and pressure, what the critical distance is for different materials.

Some materials are sufficiently cracked, and again coal is a good example, that the two jet system is not always necessary to achieve acceptable results. If the jet is aimed to flow into the horizontal bedding planes, for example, and then strikes a perpendicular cleat plane, then if there is an adjacent free surface, the water force may be sufficient, as it then surrounds the block of coal, that it can liberate it with only one jet. There is a difference between the volumes when the jet is used to pressurize one set of layers relative to the other. Perhaps the best illustration of this comes from some trials of coal mining in a steeply dipping seam of coal in Colorado.

Figure 2. Remote testing of a coal mining monitor inside the portal of an underground mine in Colorado.

Where the monitor was used to cut single passes across the face of the coal then there was a slight increase in the volume of material as the nozzle diameter (and thus water flow) increased. But where the jet was cutting into the cleat to fracture the coal (fracking) then the gain in volume mined was significant, and when the jet could work to pressurize the horizontal bedding planes, and thus to break off large slabs of coal, then the gain was even more significant.

Figure 3. The gain in coal production as higher volumes of water are used to pressurize internal fractures within the coal, breaking off greater volumes.

The larger nozzle diameters ( up to and beyond an inch) make it easier to sustain the pressure within the weakness planes of the coal, as the water spreads along the length of the fracture, exerting increasing amounts of force on the coal and thereby breaking it from the solid and moving it into a free space, provided that one exists for it.

The best mechanism for achieving this break depends on circumstance. If, for example, one is driving an access tunnel, then large free surfaces may not exist, and it may be less easy to find the weakness planes to exploit for large material removal. One way that Chinese investigators overcame this problem was to oscillate their cutting nozzle in a plane perpendicular to the traverse line.

Figure 4. Chinese Oscillating head miner

A simple cam connection to the nozzle drive forces the nozzle to move up and down during operation cutting a wide groove in the slab, and with the nozzle moved sufficiently that the ribs between adjacent passes is also removed by jet action.

Figure 5. Volumes of simulated coal removed in equivalent times. The top slot is removed without the jet oscillating. (It can be seen in the center of the wider slot). The lower slot is cut with the head oscillating at the same time as it is traversed.

Again, where the contrast between a confined jet and one which can work to a free surface is examined, the change in the volumes extracted can be seen to be quite significant.

The important lessons to learn in this are that the jet itself penetrates very rapidly into the material ( about 1/100th of a second) it then starts to lose efficiency as pressure is lost due to the effects of the side walls of the cut made and in the loss of pressure to water penetrating into the surrounding materials. If, however, that pressure can be developed as an additional means for removing material, by providing an adjacent free surface, or second pressurized zone from an equivalent jet cutting nearby, then the total volume of material removed can be significantly improved.