Waterjet Technology – Starting to make water jet cut hole

By Dr. David A. Summers, Curators’ Professor at Missouri University of Science & Technology

KMT Waterjet Systems Weekly Waterjet Blog

KMT Waterjet Systems Weekly Waterjet Blog

This small sequence of posts describes the initial milliseconds during which a high-pressure waterjet penetrates into a target material. Because this work was largely developed using rock targets, most of the illustrations will be with that material, but the concept applies, to a degree, also with abrasive laden jets penetrating into materials such as glass.

For this post, I am going to discuss just what happens with the jet being fired down onto the target surface without either the nozzle or the target moving. Much of this work was carried out in the 1960’s in the UK though I will begin with some tests that Dr. Bill Cooley carried out using his modification to a Russian hydraulic cannon that he redesigned so that it was capable of firing at 500,000 psi – and yes I have seen it fired at that pressure (I took the photo).

The Cooley Cannon ready to fire at 500,000 psi in an underground mine

Figure 1. The Cooley Cannon ready to fire at 500,000 psi in an underground mine.

In order to see how effective different processes were in cutting into different materials, the international scientific community that was developing waterjet technology at the time needed a method to compare the different approaches. The metric that was used was to define the Specific Energy as the amount of energy that it took to remove a unit volume of the target material. (And in time that will be subject of some more specific posts).

Bill’s cannon used stored gas that was suddenly released as a way of driving the water at the desired pressure and measured the pressure indirectly by timing the break of two pencil leads in front of the nozzle. This gave the jet velocity, and pressure could be back-calculated from that value.

Dr. Cooley took results from his work and from other scientists working with similar devices, to produce the following graph.

Specific energy as a function of the impacting jet length, measured in nozzle diameters

Figure 2. Specific energy as a function of the impacting jet length, measured in nozzle diameters. (Cooley, W.C., “Correlation of Data on Erosion and Breakage of Rock by High Pressure Water Jets,” Chapter 33, Dynamic Rock Mechanics, ed., G.B. Clark, 12th Symposium on Rock Mechanics, University of Missouri-Rolla, November, 1970, pp. 653 – 665.)

For those running a conventional cutting table, the water orifice is around 10 thousandths of an inch in diameter. So what this graph is saying is that once the first thousand diameters of length (1000 x 0.001= 10 inches) has hit the surface, then the process starts to become significantly less efficient. If the jet is moving at 2,000 ft/sec, that length arrives in around 0.0005 seconds. Why this rising inefficiency after that time, and how do we get around it?

Earlier in this series I mentioned that one of the tests to find the pressure at which a waterjet penetrates a target is to note the point at which, instead of the water hitting the surface and flowing along it, it changed direction to flow back towards the nozzle. This is because as the jet penetrates, it makes a hole, and the only way out of that hole is back along the way the jet came. Unfortunately, there is more water still coming down into the hole, and so the water leaving the hole (at the same volume flow rate) meets the water coming into the hole. The rapidly moving water going out is moving about as fast as that coming in, and so, as the hole gets deeper, the pressure at the bottom of the hole gets less. This has been measured by a number of folk, but Dr. Stan Leach was the first, and produced this plot:

Depth at the bottom of a hole, as a function of the incoming jet pressure

Figure 3. Depth at the bottom of a hole, as a function of the incoming jet pressure. (Leach, S.J., and Walker, G.L., “The Application of High Speed Liquid Jets to Cutting,” Philosophical Transactions, Royal Society (London), Vol. 260 A, 1966,pp. 295 – 308.)

Because the holes were preformed of metal (to hold the transducer) and were sized to the nozzle diameter, this is not as it turns out totally accurate although it illustrates the problem.

It isn’t totally accurate because, as the illustration from the last two posts showed, the erosion occurs initially around the edge of the jet rather than under it, and thus the hole created is about twice to three times the jet diameter rather than being of the same size.

Damage pattern around the impact point of a 10,000 psi pressure, 0.04 inch diameter jet on aluminum, target close to the nozzle

Figure 4. Damage pattern around the impact point of a 10,000 psi pressure, 0.04 inch diameter jet on aluminum, target close to the nozzle.

Nevertheless, as the hole deepens, the pressure at the bottom of the hole gets less, and after a while the jet penetration slows to almost a halt.

Penetration as a function of time

Figure 5. Penetration as a function of time (My Dissertation)

The sides of the hole, however, continue to erode, but from the bottom upwards so that after a short while, the narrower entry hole starts to constrict the flow out, and pressure begins to build-up in the hole.

Remember that a waterjet works by growing existing cracks in the material. So that if there is a natural crack in the rock, which may be as small as a grain boundary, or the scratch made by an abrasive particle as it moves back out of a hole in glass, then the water entering that small crevice will pressurize the walls and cause the crack to grow. Often there is more than one, and the result can be, in rock:

Rock breakage around the jet impact point on a 1-ft block of sandstone

Figure 6. Rock breakage around the jet impact point on a 1-ft block of sandstone (after Moodie and Artingstall Moodie, K., Artingstall, G., “Some Experiments in the Application of High Pressure Water Jets for Mineral Excavation,” paper E3, 1st International Symp on Jet Cutting Technology, Coventry U.K., April, 1972, pp. E3 25 – E3 44.)

In rock, that might not be such a bad thing since in many cases the intent is just to break the rock out of the way, so that a tunnel can be created that folk can walk or drive through. But in the case of glass and other such brittle materials, where the object is just to make a very fine cut with no side cracks, cracking the sheet is disastrous. This can be illustrated by the results when a jet was fired along the central axis of a 2-inch diameter core of granite. The escape of water into the cracks allowed the cycle to repeat several times, and the hole was, as a result, much deeper than it would have been if the cracking had not occurred.

2-inch diameter granite core that split when a short jet pulse was fired into the core, along the axis

Figure 7. 2-inch diameter granite core that split when a short jet pulse was fired into the core, along the axis.

And so, next time, I’ll write about some of the ways in which we can get around this problem.

Waterjetting Technology – Repairing Concrete

By Dr. David A. Summers, Curators’ Professor at Missouri University of Science & Technology

KMT Waterjet Systems Weekly Waterjet Blog

KMT Waterjet Systems Weekly Waterjet Blog

Some years ago, we were on a bridge in Michigan, working on a demonstration of the ability of high-pressure jets to remove damaged concrete from the surface of the bridge. Before the demonstration began, the state bridge inspector walked over the bridge armed with a length of chain. He would drop the lower links of the chain against the concrete at regular intervals and, depending on the sound made by the contact, would decide if the concrete was good or not. He then marked out the damaged zones on the concrete and suggested that we got to work and removed those patches.

Automated removal of damaged concrete with water pressure

Figure 1. Automated removal of damaged concrete with water pressure

The change in the sound that he heard and used to find the bad patches in the concrete was caused by the growth of cracks in that concrete. It was these longer cracks and delaminations in the concrete that made it sound “drummy” and which identified it as bad concrete.

Now here is the initial advantage that a high-pressure waterjet has in such a case. The water will penetrate into these cracks. As I mentioned in an earlier post, water removes material by growing existing cracks until they intersect and pieces of the surface are removed. The bigger the cracks in the surface, the lower the pressure that is needed to cause them to grow. This is because the water fills the crack and pressurizes the water – the longer the crack, the greater the resulting force, and thus the greater the ease in removing material.

At an operating waterjet pressure of between 11,000 and 12,500 psi for a normal bridge-deck concrete, the cracks that are long enough for an inspector to call the bridge “damaged” will grow and cause the damaged material to break off. The pressure is low enough, however, that it will not grow the smaller cracks in “good” concrete, which is therefore left in place.

Damaged area of bridge after jet passes

Figure 2. Damaged area of bridge after jet passes.

In order to cover the bridge effectively and at a reasonable speed, six jets were directed down from the ends of a set of rotating crossheads within a protective cover. The diameter of the path was around 2 feet, and the head was traversed over the bridge so that it took about a minute for the head to sweep the width of a traffic lane.

Scarifying jets with the head raised above the deck so that their location can be seen

Figure 3. Scarifying jets with the head raised above the deck so that their location can be seen. Normally, the nozzles are positioned just above the deck, so that the rebounding material is caught in the shroud.

Unfortunately, while this means that the rotating waterjet head could distinguish between good and bad, and remove the latter while leaving the former, it could not read marks on concrete. So where the bridge inspector was not totally accurate, the jet removal did not follow his recommendations. It was, however, quite good at removing damaged concrete from reinforcing bar in the concrete where the water migration along the rebar had also caused the metal to rust. And, since the pressure was low enough to remove the cement bonding without digging out or breaking the small pebbles in the concrete, they remained partially anchored in the residual concrete. As a result, when the new pour was made over the cleaned surface, the new cement could bond to the original pebbles, and this gave a rough non-laminar surface, which provided a much better bond than if the damaged material had been removed mechanically with a grinding tool.

Rebar cleaned by the action of the jet as it removes the surrounding damaged concrete

Figure 4. Rebar cleaned by the action of the jet as it removes the surrounding damaged concrete.

Waterjets had an additional advantage at this point: In contrast to the jackhammer that had previously been used to dig out the damaged region, but which vibrated the rebar when it was hit, so that damage spread along the bar outside the zone being repaired, the waterjet did not exert a similar force, so that the delamination was largely eliminated.

Now this ability to sense and remove all the damaged concrete is not an unmixed blessing. Consider that a bridge deck is typically several inches thick and it is usually sufficient to remove damaged concrete to a point just below the top layer of the reinforcing rods. Once the damaged material is removed, the new pour bonds to the underlying cement and the cleaned rebar. But the waterjets cannot read rulers either. So in early cases where the deck was more thoroughly damaged than the contractor knew at the time that the job began, the jet might remove all the damaged concrete, and this might mean the entire thickness of the bridge deck. And OOPS this could be very expensive in time and material to replace.

What was therefore needed was a tool that still retained some of the advantages of the existing waterjet system, namely that it cut through weakened concrete and cleaned the rebar without vibration, but that it did so with a more limited range so that the depth of material removal could be controlled.

There was an additional problem that also developed with the original concept. For though the jets removed damaged concrete well in this pressure range, the jets were characteristically quite large (about 0.04 inches or so). The damaged concrete is contaminated with grease and other deposits from the vehicles that passed over it. Thus any large volumes of cleaning water would also become contaminated and as a result will have to be collected and treated. That can be expensive, and so any way of reducing the water volume would be helpful.

The answer to both problems was to use smaller jets at higher pressures. Because of the smaller size, their range is limited and at the same time the amount of water involved can be dramatically reduced. It does mean that the jet is no longer as discriminatory between “good” concrete and “bad.” This is not, however, a totally bad thing, since when working to clean around the reinforcing rods, there has to be a large enough passage for the new fill to be able to easily spread into all the gaps and establish a good bond.

Thus the vast majority of concrete removal tools that are currently in use are operated at higher pressures and lower flow rates. This allows the floor to be relatively evenly removed down to a designated depth, and this makes the quantification of the amount of material to be used in repair to be better estimated and the costs of disposal of the spent fluid and material to be minimized.

Scarified garage floor showing the rough underlying surface

Figure 5. Scarified garage floor showing the rough underlying surface. This will give a good bond to the repair material, as will the cleaned rebar.

The higher pressure system has the incidental advantage of reducing the back thrust on the cutting heads so that the overall size of the equipment can be reduced allowing repair in more confined conditions.

Waterjet Pumps – Pump Pressure is not Cutting Pressure

By Dr. David A. Summers, Curators’ Professor at Missouri University of Science & Technology

KMT Waterjet Systems Weekly Waterjet Blog

KMT Waterjet Systems Weekly Waterjet Blog

When I began this series, I pointed out that whenever a waterjet is going to be used both the target material and the waterjet delivery system have to be considered if the work is to be done well.

In the last four posts I have tried to emphasize the role of cracks and flaws in the way in which water penetrates into and removes material. It is easier to see this with large-scale operations, such as in the removal of large volumes of soil, but it equally holds true in the abrasive cutting of glass. Now in this next series of KMT Waterjet Blogs, the focus is going to swing back to the ways in which high-pressure waterjets are developed, particularly in the different choices of equipment that can be used.

Because this KMT Waterjet Blog Series is meant to help folk understand how systems work and through that how to improve production and quality, it will tend to shy away from putting a lot of formulae into the presentations. There is a reason that I, an academic, don’t like having students learn equations by rote. It is that it becomes quite possible to misremember them. If you are used to looking them up (particularly true in today’s computer world where formulae can easily be used to generate tables) then you are less likely to mis-remember the exact relationships and to make a possible critical mistake.

But, as I showed here, when the tables of jet flow, horsepower and thrust were generated, there are a few critical equations that need to be born in mind. And the one that underlies the economics of many operations is tied up in the size of the power that is available to do the work. The basic power equation itself is relatively straightforward:

Relationship between hydraulic horsepower, pressure and flow

Figure 1. Relationship between hydraulic horsepower, pressure and flow.

But the calculation gives different values, depending on where the calculation is made in a circuit. To demonstrate this, let us use a very simple drawing of a flow circuit.

Components of a simple flow circuit

Figure 2. The components of a simple flow circuit. Water is drawn from the water tank, through the pump and delivered down a hose to a high-pressure lance, where the water is fed, through a nozzle and aimed at the target, where it does the work.

In the course of this small set of posts the different components that make up this circuit are going to be discussed in turn. But at the end of the first set, I mentioned that in an early comparison of the relative cleaning performance of 10,000 psi waterjets of nominally equal power, and flow (10 gpm IIRC) there was a dramatic difference in the cleaning efficiency, as the Navy reported at the time.

Relative cleaning efficiency in areal percentage cleaned of five competing systems in cleaning heat exchanger tubes in Navy boilers

Figure 3. Relative cleaning efficiency in areal percentage cleaned of five competing systems in cleaning heat exchanger tubes in Navy boilers. (Tursi, T.P. Jr., & Deleece, R.J. Jr, (1975) Development of Very High Pressure Waterjet for Cleaning Naval Boiler Tubes, Naval Ship Engineering Center, Philadelphia Division, Philadelphia, PA., 1975, pp. 18.)

Why such a difference? Consider how the power changes from the time that it first enters the pump motor, and then is converted into power along the line to the target. The numbers that I am going to use may seem extreme, but they actually mirror an early experimental set-up in our laboratory, before we learned better.

A water flow of 10 gallons a minute (gpm) at a pressure of 10,000 pounds per square inch (psi) pressure will contain – using the above equation;

10,000 x 10/1714 = 58.34 horsepower (hp)

But that is the power in the water. Pumps are not 100% efficient, and so there has to be some additional power put into the pump to allow for the relative efficiency of the pump itself. For the sake of illustration let us say that the pump converts the energy at 90% efficiency. Thus the power that is supplied to the drive shaft of the pump will need to be:

58.34/0.9 = 64.8 hp

But that is still not the power that we have to supply, since that power – usually – comes from an electric power cord that feeds into a motor, which then, in turn, drives the pump shaft. That motor itself is also not 100% efficient. Let us, for the sake of discussion, say that it is 92.6% efficient. Then the electrical power supplied will be:

64.8/0.926 = 70 hp

Now, as the calculation progresses, remember that this is the power that is being paid for. And so, in the first part of the flow, the power is transformed from electric power to water power, but at the pump.

The change in power from that input to the motor to that coming out of the pump

Figure 4. The change in power from that input to the motor to that coming out of the pump.

The water coming out of the pump then flows through either a length of pipe, or high-pressure tubing until it comes to the tool that holds the nozzle. There are a number of different factors that change the flow conditions to the point that it leaves the nozzle. The most critical, and often overlooked, is the size of the hose/tubing that carries the water. Particularly as pumps get larger and more powerful and the flow rates increase, it is important to ensure that the passage for the water is large enough so that it does not require too much pressure to overcome the friction acting against that flow. I have, myself, put an additional 10-ft length of tubing on a drilling lance, and seen the cutting pressure coming out the end fall from that which drilled a rock at 12 ft/minute to where it could not drill at all. (The pressure drop was around 200 psi per foot). I mentioned in that earlier post that a competitor, running at a pump pressure of 45,000 psi was losing 35,000 psi of that pressure just to overcome friction in pushing the water down through a tube that was too narrow. As a result the water coming out of the nozzle had barely enough pressure (10,000 psi) to cut into the rock.

At the same time, very few people pay a lot of attention to how their nozzle fits on the end of the feed line, or how well it is made. Think of this – you have just spent $200,000 on a system, and yet, because the nozzle is a disposable part, you look around for the cheapest source you can get. You don’t size it for a good fluid fit, nor do you check how well it is machined. And yet the entire performance of your system is controlled by that small item. The difference between a very good nozzle and a standard nozzle can give as much as a factor of 10 improvement on performance – but who checks. The one you use saved you $15 relative to what you would have paid if you had bought the competing product, what a bargain – right?

There are different ways in which pumps operate and produce the high-pressure flow. With a fixed size of orifice in the nozzle and with a given pressure drop along the feed line, the pressure at the nozzle will be correspondingly reduced. So that if, for example, we use a 0.063 inch diameter nozzle then the chart you developed after generating the table will show that this will carry a flow of 9.84 gpm at 10,000 psi. But let us suppose that the hose loses 20 psi per foot of length, and that the hose is 200 ft long, then the pressure drop along the hose will be 20 x 200 = 4,000 psi.

Thus the pressure of the water coming out of the hose will be only 6,000 psi. And at an orifice of 0.063 inches, the flow through the orifice will now only be 7.62 gpm. (The way in which the pressure is controlled is assumed to be through bypassing extra flow back to the reservoir through a bleed-off circuit).

Now the pump is still putting out 10 gpm at 10,000 psi, but now the flow out of the nozzle is only 7.62 gpm at 6,000 psi. The power in this jet is (7.62 x 6,000/1714) only 26.7 hp. This is only 38% of the energy going into the pump.

The power losses to the nozzle

Figure 5. The power losses to the nozzle.

Unfortunately this is not the end of the losses. Particularly in cleaning operations there is a tendency for the operator to hold the nozzle at a comfortable distance from the target, so that the effect can be seen. But, as I will show in later posts, the jet pressure can fall rapidly as stand-off distance increases, particularly with a poor nozzle. A good range for a normal nozzle in a cleaning operation is about 125 nozzle diameters. So that at a diameter of 0.063 inches this range is less than 8 inches. Many people hold the nozzle at least a foot from the target.

If the nozzle is held about that far from the target the pressure will have fallen by perhaps 65%. The water thus reaches the target at around 2,000 psi. The flow rate is 7.62 gpm, and the actual horsepower of the water doing the work is 8.89 hp. This is 12.7% of the power that is being paid for through the meter. And the unfortunate problem is that no-one can tell, just by looking at the jet, what the pressure and flow rates are. So that often these losses go undetected, and folk merely complain about how the target material is more resistant today, not recognizing that they are throwing away 87% of the power that they are paying for.

Power losses from the power cord to the target

Figure 6. Power losses from the power cord to the target.

One of the objects of this series is to help reduce these losses, by avoiding those mistakes that those of us who started in the industry some 40-odd years ago made all the time.