There are a number of different abrasives that can be supplied by different sources, and the market for the small grains that are used in abrasive waterjet cutting extends considerably beyond just the waterjet business. All abrasives are not created equal, some work better in one condition, others in another. As with other tools that the waterjet cutter or cleaner will use, first you should decide what the need for the abrasive is, and run a small series of tests to find out which is the best set of cutting conditions for that particular job.
The first item on the list should be the material that has to be cut. (Although abrasives are also used in cleaning, that will be covered in a later post). There are, simplifying greatly, two classes of material that have to be cut. One class responds in a brittle way (think glass) and the other responds in a ductile or yielding manner (think metal). Because of these different responses, when the particles hit the surface, the way in which cuts are best made will vary between the two. Some years ago Ives and Ruff shot abrasive particles at different targets and found that there was a difference in the amount of material removed, but the best angle at which the particles should be aimed changed with the material.
Some work at The University of Missouri Science and Technology just before I retired indicated that the shape of these curves changed a little, depending on the size of the abrasive that is used. There are also some changes with abrasive shape. And this is because of the entirely different way in which an abrasive particle cuts into the two different materials. In this post we’ll discuss only the ductile target.
If a relatively smooth particle is shot into a ductile material at an angle perpendicular to the surface, then when it hits the surface the target material will flow out from underneath, but not be removed. As the following micro-photograph shows the particles can become embedded in the material – and even add to the weight of the piece on rare occasion.
There is very little material removed in this case, as the black curve shows in Figure 1, when the impact angle approaches 90 degrees. Consider that if you take a knife and push it down into butter you don’t remove any butter. But if you drag the knife over the butter surface you will peel off a layer.
So it is with abrasive hitting a ductile metal. If the abrasive is brought in at an angle, (optimized in the figure at 15 degrees) then the abrasive has a cutting energy along the surface and this will peel up, and remove small pieces of the surface. By taking a microphotograph along the edge of an abrasive cut, we were able to show the action of individual particles in cutting into the metal.
Where the surface is plowed up, but not removed, another particle has to hit that point to remove the relatively fragile lip. However, if the particle is a copper slag, or other relatively weak material, it can shatter during the cutting process, and the breaking pieces can break off that lip, so that – again in the right material – the slag may give a better performance than a more expensive alternative.
But if we are to cut metal in this way, what does that say about the shape of the particles that we need to use. Obviously if they were round, such as a steel or glass shot, then there would be no sharp edges to cut into and peel off the material. Thus a steel or glass grit will cut better, though each particle needs a certain thickness in all dimensions so that there will be enough energy to both cut into the material, and plow along it.
A relatively round particle with sharp corners, and garnet is usually such a particle, can often work well in cutting a range of different ductile materials.
Now that is fine when a high-pressure abrasive waterjet (AWJ) is starting to cut into the surface, but as the jet cuts down into the surface the angle of the cut will change. Yet even if the jet is pointing directly down into the target, and moving along to cut through it, the cut surface is not usually a straight line down through the material.
Cuts into Plexiglas and other clear materials have allowed research scientists to monitor the cut path through the target, as a function of time. It is not a constant shape, but, as Dr. Henning showed at the 18th International Conference, the edge of the cut changes with time. You can see the results of this in cuts that are made through metal where the paths of the cut, particularly lower in the cut, curve around and back towards the start of the cut.
This path confirms an explanation first proposed by Dr Lars Ohlsson in his doctorate at Lulea in Sweden. He pointed out that the change in the surface of the cut is caused by the sequence of actions that a particle sees as it comes down onto the surface.
First it comes in almost vertically, with no lateral energy, and it cuts in the smooth, upper part of the cut. Then it rebounds out of the cut, but into the jet stream that gives it a little more energy, and directs it along the cut to a second point where it will cut a little bit more of the metal. But during the first rebound the particle does not bounce perfectly along the cut, but deviates to one side or the other. This means that when it makes the second cut, it will now cut more into one side of the wall or the other. Thus, where the second bounce occurs, so the surface gets a little rougher.
By the time of the third cut and rebound, the jet will now be coming into the opposing side of the cut with an even greater lateral portion of its energy, and so the cut will get a little rougher. Remember also that each cut is made up of the impacts of very many particles. So that succeeding particles also rebound along the curve cut by the preceding particle, and this also will exacerbate the roughness of the cut.
We’ll talk a little about reducing this effect in the next post.