Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 42:263279 DOI 10.

1007/s00170-008-1583-5

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Piercing in delicate materials with abrasive-waterjets

H.-T. Liu & E. Schubert

Received: 13 September 2007 / Accepted: 22 May 2008 / Published online: 9 July 2008 # Springer-Verlag London Limited 2008

Abstract Abrasive waterjets (AWJs) have proven to be a versatile tool for precision machining of a variety of materials and are applicable to virtually any material; there is no heat-affected zone, no tooling, fast turnaround, and is cost-effective for large and small lot sizes. Nevertheless, damage to delicate material may occur during the initial piercing stage. The large buildup of piercing pressure (pp) inside blind holes is responsible for the damage. Laboratory results show that pp decreases with the hole depth. At 345 MPa, waterjet-induced pp in an AWJ-pierced blind hole was measured and extrapolated to be about 180 MPa at the target surface. Such a large pp exceeds the ultimate strength of many delicate materials such as laminates, composites, glass, and other brittle materials. We have discovered that the phase change of the working fluid of liquefied nitrogen (LN2) in an abrasive cryogenic jet (ACJ) is an effective means to mitigate piercing damage. Most of the LN2 evaporates before entering the blind hole, significantly reducing the piercing pressure. This paper investigates the causes and extent of piercing damage induced by AWJs. Understanding such causes has led to the development of a cost-effective flash abrasive waterjet (FAWJ) to emulate the phase change of the ACJ for mitigating piercing damage. The mechanisms leading to the mitigation of piercing damage by the FAWJ are described qualitatively and quantitatively. Comparison of the visual results of holes pierced in several delicate materials with AWJs and FAWJs is presented to correlate the extent and the mitigation of damage with the piercing pressure.

Keywords Abrasive waterjets . Hole piercing . Piercing and stagnation pressures . Laminates . Composites . Delamination . Microcracking . Precision machining

1 Introduction One of the unique characteristics of the waterjet technology is its ability to cut virtually any material. Abrasive waterjets (AWJs) are so powerful that if uncontrolled or untamed, damage to delicate materials would result. To help fully realize the potential of the waterjet technology as a material-independent machining tool, it is necessary to control the raw power of AWJs such that damage to delicate materials could be mitigated. Numerical simulation of AWJ piercing using a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) code has demonstrated that large stagnation or piercing pressures are induced inside blind holes during the initial stage of AWJ piercing before breakthrough takes place [1].1 Materials with ultimate strength below the piercing pressure would be subject to damage in terms of delamination, surface/subsurface cracking, and chipping. Subsequent piercing tests using a liquefied nitrogen (LN2)based abrasive cryogenic jet (ACJ) have demonstrated that the phase change process of the ACJ has significantly reduced the piercing pressure inside blind holes, leading to the mitigation of damage in many delicate materials [2, 3]. However, the ACJ is not a viable machine tool for industrial applications because of its bulkiness, costineffectiveness, process complexity, and harsh operating environment. Motivated by the above discovery that the
The pressure inside the blind hole before breakthrough takes place is referred to as the piercing pressure. The maximum piercing pressure is, by definition, the stagnation pressure where the fluid is stagnant in the jet impingement zone.
1

H.-T. Liu (*) : E. Schubert OMAX Corporation, 21409 72nd Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032, USA e-mail: peter.liu@omax.com

264

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 42:263279

raw power of AWJs could be effectively controlled, the authors began looking for alternatives to emulate the phase change process of the ACJ as a means to reduce the piercing pressure and therefore mitigating piercing damage in delicate materials. As a result, a flash abrasive waterjet (FAWJ) by superheating the water in the AWJ was subsequently developed as a viable alternate to the ACJ [4, 5]. The main objective of the paper was therefore to investigate from the fluid dynamic point of view the mechanisms that lead to damage in delicate materials during the initial piercing stage by AWJs. Based on the understanding of such mechanisms, remedies were developed to minimize or mitigate the piercing damage. For example, the ACJ and FAWJ are two such remedies that have shown to be effective in mitigating piercing damage in many delicate materials. Since commercialized in the 1980s, waterjet technology has matured as a precision machine tool. Both hardware and software have been developed toward highly automated operations for two-dimensional machining. For many applications, AWJs are inherently superior to other machine tools, particularly for processing high-strength materials and composites. The advantages of AWJs include: AWJs are cold processes that generate no heat-affected zone that could compromise the structural integrity of the workpiece and form recast on the finished parts (superior to lasers and EDM); AWJ machining induces very little mechanical stress that causes surface/subsurface damage to materials with high strength (superior to conventional machining tools including diamond cutters); A virtually material-independent process (superior to lasers, EDM, and ultrasound); AWJs are applicable for isotropic and anisotropic materials and have no contact tool to break; AWJs can be used to pierce shaped holes and smalldiameter holes with large aspect ratios at any angle of inclination (superior to mechanical, laser, EDM, and ultrasound piercing); AWJ machining is faster than the EDM and does not produce hazardous wastes as does chemical etching; Spent abrasives can be recycled to reduce costs and wastes; AWJs require no tooling and are equally cost- and timeeffective for manufacturing small and large lots; and AWJs are capable of multiple machining (parting, drilling, turning, milling, grooving, and roughing, etc.) in a single setup, greatly reducing costs, expediting turnaround, and eliminating error due to part transfer.

including fluid-solid and solidsolid interactions in complex three-dimensional spaces with rapidly evolving shape and boundaries. Although AWJs have the unique ability to cut most materials, their raw erosive power must be controlled and tamed to avoid collateral damage to workpieces, particularly for those made of brittle and delicate materials such as glass, laminates, and composites. Therefore, AWJs have not fully realized their potential as a material-independent machine tool. Much effort has been made to understand the AWJ hole piercing process because it is often the very first step of AWJ machining and is of fundamental importance [69]. Most of our understanding in the AWJ piercing process is at best qualitative in nature. Recently, emphasis has been made to study the fluid dynamics of AWJ hole piercing in an attempt to quantify the AWJ piercing phenomenon [2, 3, 10]. One of the main findings from past work on fluid dynamics of AWJ is that there is a large stagnation or piercing pressure buildup inside blind holes during the early stage of AWJ piercing before breakthrough.2 The pressure buildup results from conversion of kinetic energy to potential energy (due to pressure force) as the nearly incompressible water in the AWJ decelerates, stops, and reverses its course at and near the bottom of blind holes. For materials with ultimate strength below the piercing pressure developed inside blind holes, damage in the form of surface/subsurface cracking in brittle materials and delamination in laminates would result. Hereafter, we will refer such damage as piercing damage. The piercing pressure depends on the speed of the working fluid but not on that of the entrained abrasives in the slurry. The piercing pressure of AWJs is lower than that of WJs operating at the same pressure as the result of momentum transfer from water to abrasives. The higher the efficiency of momentum transfer, the lower the piercing pressure of AWJs is at impact. For most AWJ nozzles, however, abrasives are fed from a hopper connected to the feed port of the nozzle through a small-diameter tube with a typical length of 10 cm. As soon as the WJ is turned on, the vacuum created by the jet pump effect begins to draw in the abrasives from the hopper. It takes a short time for abrasives to travel through the length of the tube and to be entrained into the jet; until then, the jet impinging onto the surface of the workpiece is void of abrasives. During that short moment, the workpiece is most vulnerable because the piercing pressure maximizesthe worst combination of zero hole depth and absence of abrasives in the jet. For glass piercing, it is well known that the absence of
2 By definition, stagnation pressure, ps, is the pressure at a stagnation point (e.g., on the nose of an aircraft fuselage) where the fluid velocity is zero. The pressure at any point inside a blind hole is generally referred to as the piercing pressure, pp. Note that pp ps.

AWJs are a three-phase flow that has not been fully understood nor accurately modeled analytically and/or numerically. The AWJ piercing is a complex process

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 42:263279

265

abrasives in AWJs at any time, particularly at startup or due to clogging, often leads to cracking. Several remedies have been applied to minimize piercing damage with limited success. Remedies include pre-drilling holes mechanically, pressure ramping, and pressure ramping with supplemental vacuum [3]. Each remedy, however, has its own limitations. For example, mechanical predrilling requires the installation of a mechanical drill head. The accuracy of alignment is essential to ensure overlap between the predrilled holes and AWJ. Switching between the drilling head and the AWJ nozzle would inevitably increase the processing times. Pressure ramping gradually increases the pressure during startup of the jet to ensure that abrasives reach the surface of the workpiece before the piercing pressure exceeds the tensile strength of target materials. Supplemental vacuum boosts the abrasive mass flow rate at low jet pressures. Pressure ramping combined with supplemental vacuum further accelerates the delivery of abrasives to the workpiece. For materials with extremely low tensile or adhesion strength, the combination of pressure ramping and supplemental vacuum may still fail. Examples include laminates with very weak adhesive strength between layers. The above combination may have difficulty piercing highly anisotropic materials such as silicon carbide ceramic matrix composites (SIC CMCs) that consist of very hard and tough silicon fiber bundles and weak ceramic matrix. They are extremely difficult to cut even with diamond-coated tools, as the SIC fibers wear them out quickly, leading to frequent tool breakage. To cut through the SIC fibers, the AWJ must be operated at a very high pressure where the piercing pressure developed inside the blind hole could be too high for the matrix to withstand. This paper focuses on the formation of piercing pressure during the initial AWJ piercing stage before breakthrough takes place. Experiments were conducted to measure the piercing pressure induced by a waterjet (WJ) and a simulated AWJ using baking powder as the abrasives through small holes on plates with difference thicknesses. Numerical predictions were used to aid in interpretation of the experimental results [10]. For a given material, its ultimate strength must exceed the piercing pressure to avoid piercing damage. Previous results of hole piercing using LN2-based ACJs have shown that phase change of the working fluid is an effective means to mitigate piercing damage [2, 3]. Upon exiting the orifice and the mixing tube, the LN2 in ACJs begins to evaporate, leaving only a little liquefied nitrogen to enter the blind hole. As a result, the piercing pressure inside blind holes reduces significantly, leading to the mitigation of piercing damage to many materials [2, 3]. However, ACJs are bulky, cost-ineffective, and difficult to operate and maintain; the operating life of critical components such as high-pressure seals and check valves are shortened in the cryogenic environment [11].

Our objective is to develop a cost-effective process that would emulate the superior performance of ACJs. A novel process was developed by superheating the water in the AWJ to form a flash AWJ (FAWJ) [4, 5].3,4 The FAWJ successfully emulates the superior performance of ACJs in mitigating piercing damage through phase change of the working fluid. Similar to the LN2, the superheated water in the FAWJ changes phase from liquid to gas upon exiting the orifice and mixing tube [5]. Only a small portion of the superheated water enters the blind hole, resulting in significant reduction in the piercing pressure and leading to the mitigating in the piercing damage. AWJs and FAWJs were used to pierce holes in various delicate materials including laminates, composite, glass, and other brittle materials. Visual observation of the AWJpierced parts made of delicate materials showed various piercing damage ranging from surface/subsurface cracking and delamination. Visual results are used to correlate the measurements of the piercing. A comparison of the test results was made to demonstrate the superior performance of FAWJs over AWJs in mitigating piercing damage.

2 Previous work 2.1 CFD modeling Numerical simulation and laboratory experiments were conducted by the author and his colleagues as a basis for developing a predictive AWJ hole-piercing model. A description of the commercial code, CFD2000 (Adaptive Research), and representative results were given in [1]. In essence, the CFD prediction shows that there is a large buildup of stagnation pressure in the bottom of the blind hole; the stagnation pressure decreases with an increase in hole depth. The return slurry flow is organized, and the spent abrasives lag the water as they turn the corner due to the difference in their densities. As a result, the abrasives are forced toward the wall near the hole entry, causing noticeable secondary wear and enlargement of the entry hole diameter. 2.2 Abrasive cryogenic jet For applications where water is undesirable or prohibited (e.g., hygroscopic materials), ACJs were developed by the senior author and his colleagues in cooperation with Praxair using liquid nitrogen or LN2 as the working fluid [11, 12]. A brief description of the ACJ setup and representative
3 4

Patent pending (see [4]).

In [5], the FAWJ was initially given an acronym of NAWJ (i.e., novel AWJ).

266

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 42:263279

results were also given in [2]. Test results show that ACJs have nearly the same erosion power as AWJs do [11]. As a non-wetting process at cryogenic temperature, ACJs can be taken advantage of for machining a variety of materials in hazardous (explosive, radioactive, and contaminated) environments. One of the important differences between ACJs and AWJs is that the working fluid, LN2, of ACJs changes phase as soon as the jet exits the orifice. The phase change process is an effective means to reduce the piercing pressure inside blind holes, as a large part of LN2 evaporates before entering the hole. It turns out that the reduction in piercing pressure is the key to minimize or mitigate piercing damage during early stage of piercing. Comparison of the performance of AWJs and ACJs has shown that the latter mitigate most damage induced by the former [2].

3 Experimental method and equipment 3.1 JetMachining Centers Hole piercing tests were conducted using one of OMAXs JetMachining Center, Model 2652, installed in the Engineering Laboratory.5 It consists of four key elements: (1) a high-accuracy motion controller operating by an AWJ expert program; (2) a precision bridge X axis and Y cantilever axis rigidly mounted to the cutting table with a working envelope of 1.30.7 m; (3) an AWJ delivery system which forces high-pressure water through a selfaligned nozzle consisting of a sapphire orifice (0.25-mm diameter) and a 6.5-cm-long tungsten carbide mixing tube with an ID of 1.52 mm; and (4) a 30-kW crankshaft pump. 3.2 AWJ/FAWJ nozzle The AWJ nozzle was an OMAXs MiniJet nozzle.6 For the FAWJ, the MiniJet nozzle was slightly modified. A metalto-metal seal with a 10 chamfer was used between the nozzle body and the jewel mount. The diameters of the jewel orifice and the mixing tube were 0.25 mm (0.001 in.) and 1.52 mm (0.06 in.), respectively. For the FAWJ, the jet pump effect is reduced as a part of the LN2 evaporating upon exiting the orifice. An airflow ejector was used to compensate for the loss of the vacuum due to evaporation of the superheated water inside the mixing chamber. The airflow ejector was connected to a port machined on the nozzle body 180 from the original abrasive feed port. The ejector creates a vacuum up to 43 cm of mercury; it serves to boost the vacuum inside the mixing chamber by
5 6

Fig. 1 Phase diagram of water

removing a part of the steam from the phase change of the superheated water.7 3.3 FAWJ laboratory model and prototype Supported by NSF SBIR grants, an FAWJ laboratory model was designed and fabricated in phase I, and it was subsequently upgraded to form a FAWJ prototype in phase II, respectively. As illustrated in Fig. 1, water pressurized to 3 MPa or higher remains in a liquid state even if it is heated to 200C. The superheated water of the FAWJ changes phase upon exiting the orifice where the pressure becomes slightly negative. A large amount of steam is generated, resulting in a reduction in vacuum created by the jet pump effect. There might be insufficient suction to pull in the abrasives through the feed port. To compensate for the loss of vacuum, an airflow ejector with an annular supersonic nozzle is used. The main component of the FAWJ laboratory model is a superheating system. Five 20-ft (6.1 m) high-pressure 316 stainless steel tubes were coiled up individually to create a 3.8-in. (9.7 cm) diameter superheating system. They were connected in series via high-pressure manifolds and placed in a melting pot (Wenesco Inc., Model MPM 700) having an inside diameter of 0.29 m and a depth of 0.48 m and a capacity of 318 kg. It is rated at 8.1 kW with a maximum operating temperature of 400C. A temperature controller regulated the temperature inside the pot. The coils were
7 http://www.pelmareng.com/pdf/vortec_products/Air_Amplifiers/ Round_Transvectors.pdf.

http://www.omax.com/machines_model_2626.php. http://www.omax.com/pdfs/max_mini207.pdf.

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 42:263279

267

buried in 60-mesh steel shot inside the melting pot. It took about 2.5 h to raise the melting pot to 320C and steel shots to 200C. The heat stored in the steel shots superheated cold water pumping through the coils. The high-pressure tube had an inside diameter of 0.083 in. (2.1 mm). The total capacity of the five 6.1-m coils was therefore 0.11 litre. At 1.9 l/min, it took about 3.5 s to empty the slug of superheated water inside the coils. Subsequently, the temperature of water flowing through the coils was governed by the temperature gradient between the steel shots and the water and the conductivity of the tube wall. With the pot temperature set at 350C, the temperature of the steel shots at the location of the coils reached 240C. At a flow rate of 1.5 l/min, the water temperature could be maintained around 170C to 180C for short runs of 10 to 20 s intermittently. This duration increased with decreasing water temperature. 3.4 Temperature sensors Two temperature sensors were used to measure the temperatures of the steel shots inside the melting pot and of the FAWJ nozzle as an indication of the water temperature. The temperature of the steel shot inside the melting pot was measured with an RTD probe housed in a 304 SS sheath with a 4.75-mm OD (Omega Engineering, Model CF-090RTD-4-60-1). The probe has a precision Pt RTD element (type J). The relation between the resistance, R, of the RTD and temperature sensed at the probe tip is given by RT R01 aT ; 1
Fig. 2 Setup for piercing pressure measurements

from 0C to 750C (J type). An amplifier with a 1.5-Hz low-passed filter powers the probe (OMNI-AMP IV). 3.5 Pressure transmitter A high-pressure transmitter, type HP1, manufactured by WIKA, was used to measure the stagnation pressure in blind holes.8 The range of the transmitter was from 0 to 414 MPa with a burst pressure of 790 MPa. A 24 VDC power supply drove the transmitter. 3.6 Experimental setup Figure 2 illustrates one setup for measuring the piercing pressure in a cavity under an orifice plate with different orifice diameters and plate thicknesses. The blind hole was pierced on a hardened stainless steel plate 10.2 mm thick with a MiniJet nozzle consisting of a 0.36-mm diameter orifice and a 0.76100.2-mm mixing tube. Piercing was conducted for only a short time until the plate nearly broke through. The blind hole that has a typical AWJ-pierced profile in ductile materials has an entry hole diameter of 1 mm [2, 3]. The plate was bolted onto a stainless steel block on which the WIKA pressure transducer was mounted. Piercing pressures, generated by a WJ and FAWJ operating at several pressures from 69 to 380 MPa, were measured with the WIKA pressure transmitter. A second apparatus was designed for measuring piercing pressure on thin orifice plates, as illustrated in Fig. 3. The device consists of a hex nut (5) screwed on a pressure
8

where T is the temperature in C, R(0) is the resistance at the cold junction, and =0.00385 is the temperature coefficient. The RTD probe is driven by the 5-VDC power available from the LabJack (see Section 3.8). A precision resistor with a value of Rr =300 was connected in series with the RTD probe. The voltage, Vo, across the resistor was measured to obtain the temperature. The temperature measured by the RTD probe is therefore   VL Rr Rr T 1 a 1 2 Vo R0 R0 Equation 2 was incorporated into the LabVIEW program to measure the temperature inside the melting pot. A thermocouple probe (Model XCIB-J-2-4-10) manufactured by Omega Engineering was potted in a collar attached to the high-pressure tubing just upstream of the nozzle. The probe tip is a small bead with a diameter of 4.75 mm. The XCIB Series incorporate high temperature ceramic insulation with inconel overbraid over 20-gage solid conductor thermocouple wires to create a flexible, abrasion-resistant thermocouple with a temperature range

http://www.wika.com/WIKAWeb/Product/pdf/HP-1.pdf.

268

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 42:263279

Item Description 1 Chamber body 2 Pressure port 3 Piercing disc 4 Pliant seal 5 Hex locking nut a. Device

Fig. 4 DDA for measuring speeds of water droplets and abrasives

b. Measurement setup

Fig. 3 Alternate device and setup for piercing pressure measurements

chamber body (1). A port (2) was made available for mounting a WIKA pressure transducer with a pressure range of 0 to 60 ksi (0 to 420 MPa). Several configurations of holes simulating the AWJ piercing were tested in an attempt to measure the piercing pressure as a function of the hole depth and diameter. One of the configurations used a 2.6-mm-thick carbide disc (3) with a 0.51-mm hole at the center. The disc was pressed tightly by the hex nut onto the chamber body. A beryllium copper seal (4) was placed between the disc and the pressure chamber body to ensure no leakage below the disc. Piercing pressures under the disc were measured at several pump pressures from 30 through 350 MPa. The WJ was aligned with the hole by traversing the jet at relatively low pressures (70 MPa), first in the x direction and then the y direction, to locate the WJ at the position where the piercing pressure peaks. Two procedures were used to measure the stagnation pressure. First, the WJ was traversed across the hole at a slow speed of 0.106 mm/s. The pressure profile thus measured has a bell shape, with its maximum value corresponding to the stagnation pressure. The second procedure was to align the WJ with the center of the hole where the pressure in the chamber maximizes. Measurements were conducted with the nozzle stationary to the piercing nut. 3.7 Dual-disc anemometer A dual-disc anemometer (DDA) developed by the senior author was reproduced and upgraded to measure speeds of water droplets in WJs and abrasives in AWJs [13]. As illustrated in Fig. 4, the DDA consists of two coaxially rotating discs with a fixed separation. Four narrow slots 90

apart were machined on the upper disc. A third disc made of 0.79-mm-thick aluminum pinned to the lower disc was used as a data recording disc. Speed measurements were conducted by projecting the jet perpendicularly to the discs with the jet traversing radially outward. Water droplets and/ or abrasives passed through the slots and produced erosion marks on the data disc. The average displacement angle, , between the four sets of erosion marks on the disc and the projected leading edges of the slots were used to derive the speeds of the water droplets and/or the abrasives. Permanent ink was coated on the surface of the data disc to visualize the erosion marks by the waterjet, particularly for p <378 MPa where the water droplet velocity is below the threshold velocity of aluminum [13]. The speed, V, in meter per second is estimated from the equation V w=60 360=a S =1000 3 where and S are the rotational speed in revolutions per minute and separation distance between the top of the upper and data discs, respectively. 3.8 Data acquisition and analysis hardware and software A laptop computer (Dell Inspiron 8200) was used to record and store experimental data. A LabJack U12, a USB-based multifunction data acquisition and control device, was used as the interface between various instruments and the computer.9 The LabJack has eight single-ended, four differential 12-bit analog inputs, two analog outputs, and a built-in 5 VDC power supply. It is capable of sampling data at rates up to 8 kHz (burst) or 1.2 kHz (stream). LabVIEW (version 6), an intuitive graphical programming language (National Instruments), was chosen as the software tool for data acquisition and control. A LabVIEW driver was included in the LabJack software package. The output of the pressure transmitter was ported into one of the LabJack differential input channels. Data were recorded on
9

http://www.labjack.com/labjack_u12.html.

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 42:263279

269

the hard drive of the laptop computer via the USB connection. Data analysis was performed on desktop computers (Dell Dimension 4550). Microsoft EXCEL and Systat SigmaPlot were used for data analysis and display.

4 Results 4.1 Measurements of piercing pressure 4.1.1 WJ and AWJ Piercing pressure inside cavities using the setup shown in Figs. 2 and 3 were measured for the WJ, AWJ using baking powder as the abrasives, and flash waterjet (FWJ), respectively. The objectives were to demonstrate (1) the large buildup in the piercing pressure in a blind hole during the initial piercing stage before breakthrough takes place and (2) reduction in the piercing pressure as the superheated water is converting into steam upon exit of the orifice and the mixing tube. Before measuring the piercing pressure, alignment of the jet to the center of the hole on the orifice plate was made by mapping the piercing pressure across the hole. Two procedures were used to measure the stagnation pressure. First, the WJ was traversed across the hole at a slow speed of 0.106 mm/s. The pressure profile thus measured has a bell shape, with its maximum value corresponding to the stagnation pressure. The second procedure was to measure the piercing pressure with the WJ placed stationary at the center of the hole. Figure 5 illustrates the typical time series for one of the runs with the nozzle traversing across a 0.25-mm diameter hole on a carbide disc 2.5 mm thick for a WJ operated at a
Fig. 5 Piercing pressure measured under a 0.51-mm diameter hole on a carbide disc 2.6 mm thick
180 160 140 120

range of pressure between 66 and 345 MPa. The abscissa and ordinate are the distance in millimeter and pressure in MPa, respectively. The measured pressure is near zero before it reaches the edge of the hole. The piercing pressure increases as the nozzle traverses across the edge of the hole and maximizes near the center of the hole, as expected. The overall piercing pressure has a bell-shaped profile with a slight dip at the center. Figure 6a is a plot of pp versus p for several hole diameters and depths. The solid and open triangles correspond to the measurements under a 0.51-mm diameter hole on a carbide disc 0.25 mm thick with the jet traversing across the hole and remaining stationary at the hole center, respectively. The open circles are the data measured under a 0.36-mm diameter diamond orifice about 0.5 mm thick; no data was shown beyond 241 MPa, as the orifice was blown away at 276 MPa. The solid squares correspond to pp measured under a 0.76-mm diameter hole on a steel plate 10.2 mm thick. The trend of increasing pp with the increase in p is well established. The results shown in Fig. 6a represent the worst scenario, as the piercing pressure would be lower for the AWJ than for the WJ. The use of garnet is not permitted because the setups shown in Figs. 2 and 3 would not survive. Subsequently, baking powder was used to replace garnet as the simulated abrasives to determine the entrainment of abrasives in reducing the piercing pressure. Figure 6b compares the piercing pressure induced by the WJ and the simulated AWJ. The trend of reduction in the piercing pressure is evident. At p =345 MPa, the reduction amounts to 25 MPa, an 18% reduction. In Fig. 7, we plot pp versus the hole depth. Also plotted is the CFD predicted stagnation pressure (solid diamonds) [1]. Note that ps inside the cavity is expected to be higher
p = 66.2 MPa p = 100.7 MPa p = 178.6 MPa p = 229.6 MPa p = 278.6 MPa p = 346.8 MPa

pp MPa

100 80 60 40 20 0 0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

Distance mm

270
180 160 140 120
Dh = 2.6 mm (Traversing) Dh = 2.6 mm (Stationary) Dh ~ 0.5 mm (Traversing) Dh = 10.2 mm [3]

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 42:263279

180 160 140 120
Dh = 2.6 mm (Water Only) Dh = 2.6 mm ( w/Baking Powder)

pp MPa

100 80 60 40 20 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

pp MPa

100 80 60 40 20 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

p MPa

p MPa

Fig. 6 Piercing pressure versus pump pressure for several hole diameters and depths

than the pp, as the stagnation pressure is, by definition, the maximum piercing pressure inside the cavity. Therefore, it is consistent that the predicted ps is higher than the measured pp. The observed trend of a decreasing piercing pressure with an increasing hole depth is, however, correct and is important in the context of AWJ piercing. Such a trend indicates that the piercing pressure is highest as the jet impinges upon the surface of the workpiece at the start of piercing. In other words, the risk for piercing damage by AWJs is the highest at the onset of piercing when the piercing pressure peaks. 4.1.2 Flash waterjet During the phase I investigation, experiments were conducted using the FAWJ laboratory model to demonstrate the effect of water temperature on the reduction of the piercing pressure. The temperature of the melting pot in which five
300 250 200
ps CFD [1] pp Experiment [3] pp Experiment - Traversing pp Experiment - Stationary Diamond Orifice - Extrapolated

150 100 50 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Hole Depth (mm)

Fig. 7 Piercing pressure versus hole depth

6.1-m-long coiled high-pressure tubes buried in steel shots set to 320C or lower. After 2.5 h, it reached a steady state, with the temperature of the steel shot rising to about 200C. A thermistor was attached to the nozzle to measure the nozzle temperature as a means to monitor the water temperature. Figure 8 illustrates a typical time series of the melting pot and nozzle temperatures, Tp and Tn, respectively. The time in the abscissa was shifted to compensate for the delay between the starts of the LabVIEW program and the pump. As shown in this figure, the steel shot temperature was maintained between 200C and 205C throughout the 60-s run. The nozzle temperature rises from about 17C, reaches a maximum of 180C, and begins to drop slowly near the end of the run. Initially, relatively cold water trapped in the section of the highpressure tube between the coils and the valve flows through the nozzle first. The rise in the nozzle temperature is expected to be considerably slower than that of the actual water temperature because the frequency response (90%) of the thermocouple probe/amplifier is 1.5 Hz. In addition, there is a time lag between the nozzle and water temperature due to the low conductivity of stainless steel. In practice, the maximum nozzle temperature, (Tn)max, is used to represent the water temperature. Figure 9 illustrates several time series of piercing pressure, pp, measured inside an AWJ-pierced hole, using an FWJ operated at p =276 MPa (see Fig. 2). Each series is identified by the maximum nozzle temperature. Piercing pressures induced by the FWJ with maximum nozzle temperatures, (Tn)max, ranging from 130C to 186C are represented by various symbols. It is expected that the water temperature will be somewhat higher than the maximum nozzle temperature. The solid line corresponds to the maximum pp measured in Fig. 6. Data recording began just before the FWJ was turned on. Initially, there is a

pp MPa

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 42:263279 Fig. 8 Typical time series of Tp and Tn

271

Fig. 9 FWJ-induced piercing pressure at several nozzle temperatures, p =276 MPa

272 Fig. 10 Results of speed measurements using DDA

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 42:263279

buildup in the piercing pressure as the jet is accelerated from zero to the maximum speed. The maximum stagnation pressure of each run depends on the water temperature in the FWJ. Note that there is a time lag between the nozzle and water temperature. The time lag for the stagnation pressure, pp, is, however, very short because the response time for the WIKA pressure transmitter is less than 1 ms. Examination of the data reveals a consistent trend of pp rising sharply as soon as the jet flows through the nozzle. For (Tn)max 139C, pp reaches a maximum and maintains around that level. The maximum pp shown in Fig. 9 is consistently lower than its unheated counterpart (i.e., 34 MPa). For (Tn)max >139C, pp begins dropping after it peaks and then rises again after it reaches a minimum. The maximum and minimum pp are strongly temperaturedependent; both decrease with the nozzle temperature. The initial steep rise and fall and the subsequent rise of pp in the time series correlate well with the rise and fall in the nozzle temperature (Fig. 7). Such transients can be alleviated by inserting a dump valve to bypass the cold water. Let us use the time series for (Tn)max =186C as an example (solid circles). The stagnation pressure would be essentially constant around ps 0.5 MPa provided the jet is bypassed for 10 s< t <20 s. In other words, the duration in which the water temperature is kept at the intended value governs the duration in which pp maintains its minimum level. Such a large reduction in the pp is expected to mitigate piercing damage during the early stage of piercing on most materials. 4.2 Measurement of speeds of water droplets and abrasives Speeds of water droplets and abrasives for the WJ/AWJ and FWJ/FAWJ were measured with the DDA described in

Section 3.6 using the same nozzle configuration and experimental parameters for the flash and un-flash jets. The water droplet speeds of the WJ serve as references for the abrasive velocities of the AWJ and FAWJ. Figure 10 summarizes the results of the average speed measurements for a range of pressure between 140 and 380 MPa. The solid line represents the Bernoulli velocity defined as q VB 2p=r 4 The open diamonds are results of previous measurements using a different nozzle [13]. The solid triangles are the water droplet speeds of the un-flash WJ. The relatively large diameter ratio of the nozzle, with dm/dn =6, attributes to the slightly lower droplet velocities than those of previous measurements using a nozzle with dm/dn =2.83.10 The bestfit equation between the droplet velocity, Vw, and VB is Vw 0:9573VB 5

For the FWJ, no erosion mark was generating on the ink coating for p up to 380 MPa. It is evident that most water in the FWJ has changed phase and part of the steam has escaped. The water droplets and steam mixture impinging the data disc simply do not have the erosive power to remove the coating. Such a finding further supports the significant reduction in the stagnation pressure inside blind cavities, resulting in minimizing piercing damage of delicate materials. The solid and open squares represent the average abrasive velocities for the un-flash and flash
10

The large diameter ratio was used to compensate for the large volume of steam moving through the mixing tube as a result of phase change of water in the FAWJ.

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 42:263279

273

Fig. 11 Strength versus costs of engineering materials

AWJs, respectively. The upper and lower limits of the error bars correspond to the maximum and minimum abrasive velocities. Evidently, the phase change process further reduces the efficiency in accelerating the abrasives. From the erosion patterns on the data discs, however, the distribution of the abrasive speed is noticeably narrower in the FAWJ than in the AWJ; this is reflected from the difference in the vertical spread of the error bars between the two sets of data shown in Fig. 10. 4.3 Piercing in delicate materials Based on the results shown in Fig. 7, the maximum piercing pressure is about 160 to 180 MPa at the target surface for AWJs operating at 345 MPa. As illustrated in Fig. 11, there are many engineering materials that would be subject to damage when pierced with AWJs.11 Note that the tensile strength is typically 10% of compression for ceramics. As a result, many more ceramics as shown in Fig. 11 would be subject to damage. Table 1 lists the ultimate tensile strength for several materials, unfilled and filled with 30% glass fibers, when applicable. The list represents a quantitative excerpt of Fig. 10. Note that all of these materials have an ultimate tensile strength less than 100 MPa. Even the fiber-filled counterparts have a strength less than 180 MPa (the piercing

pressure at the target surface). They would be susceptible to piercing damage by the AWJ when operated at 345 MPa. For the optimum condition of the FWJ with the piercing pressure reduced from 180 MPa to 0.5 MPa, the tensile strength of most materials will be higher than the piercing pressure, as illustrated in Fig. 11. Therefore, piercing damage is averted when the AWJ is operating in the flash mode. Several series of laboratory experiments were conducted to investigate the piercing damage induced by AWJs and their mitigation by the use of FAWJs. Tests were conducted using an OMAX MiniJet nozzle consisting of a 0.25-mm diameter orifice and a 1.5-mm mixing tube. The pump pressure was set at 276 MPa. Garnet (120-mesh) was used as the abrasive fed into the nozzle via a 35-cm-long Tygon tube with an ID of 3.2 mm. No pressure ramping was used during piercing. Tests were conducted using a collection of delicate materials, including composites, laminates, and brittle materials such as float glass and Plexiglas or acrylic that have been known to be problematic for AWJs. In a recent paper, the author demonstrated that the phase change of LN2 (the working fluid in ACJs) is the main reason to mitigate AWJ-induced piercing damage [2]. The development of FAWJs was inspired by the superior performance of ACJs in taking advantage of the phase change process. The FAWJ emulated the phase change phenomenon of ACJs at considerable cost reductions, system downsizing and light weighting, and operational safety improvements.
Table 1 Ultimate tensile strength for several materials Materials Ultimate tensile strength (MPa) Unfilled ABS Acetal copolymer Acrylic (Plexiglas) Epoxy Glass Marble Nylon 6 Phenolic Polyetheretherketone Polycarbonate Polyethylene, HDPE Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) Polyimide Polyphenylene sulfide Polypropylene Polystyrene Rubber Thermoset polyester 40 60 70 69 50 (Compression) 15 70 60 90 70 15 55 85 70 40 40 15 60 30% Glass filled 6090 110 150 90 150 150 140 140

The AWJ is initially void of abrasives until they travel the length of the feed tube connecting the nozzle and the hopper and are entrained into the waterjet through the jet pump effect. In other words, the AWJ is initially a WJ for a fraction of a second.

11

http://www.matweb.com/reference/tensilestrength.asp; http://www. engineeringtoolbox.com/young-modulus-d_417.html; http://www. matweb.com/reference/composites.asp

274 Fig. 12 AWJ-and FAWJpierced holes in aluminum laminates [3] (some of the photos are reproduced from [3] with the permission of the publisher, BHR Group. Most of them have been either modified or rearranged; side-by-side comparison of the photos presents vivid visual evidences of the superiority of FAWJs to AWJs for mitigating piercing damage)

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 42:263279

Aluminum laminates (0.08 mm shims 4.6 mm thick) sandwich between top and bottom sacrificial aluminium sheets (0.8 mm thick) a. AWJ Top-entry

Bottom-exit

Edge (worst)

Edge (best)

b. FAWJ Top-entry

Bottom-exit

Edge (worst)

Edge (best)

The first test series conducted AWJ and FAWJ piercing into two of the same materials, aluminum laminates and TBC, used to demonstrate the mitigation of piercing damage by ACJs [2]. Figure 12a and b illustrates the photos of AWJ- and FAWJ-pierced holes in 6.4-mm-thick aluminum laminates made of a stack of 0.08-mm shims, respectively. The adhesion strength between shims is about 1.5 kg/m. Each sample was pre-sized to 2.52.5 mm. During piercing, each sample was sandwiched between two 0.8-mm-thick aluminum sacrificial sheets. The stack was secured in an aluminum frame with circular openings of 12.7 and 7.6-mm diameter on the top and bottom shims, respectively. From the top, bottom, and edge views of the photos shown in Fig. 12a, the AWJ caused the aluminum laminate to delaminate. It is evident from the first photo in Fig. 12a that the delamination extended many diameters away from the hole center. On the other hand, the FAWJ caused at worst only minor delamination. The superior performance of the FAWJ is consistent with a significant reduction in the piercing pressure for the FWJ as illustrated in Fig. 9. The low piercing pressure of 0.5 MPa induced by the FWJ at 186C and 10.5-mm depth is below the ultimate strength of the majority of materials shown in Fig. 9 and all of the materials listed in Table 1. Next, AWJ and FAWJ piercing was conducted on ceramic-based TBC (1.3 mm thick) on an inconel substrate (1.3 mm thick). Figure 13 presents the photos of the holes pierced by the two jets. Multiple cracks on the TBC layer and noticeable erosion on the inconel substrate are observed around the AWJ-pierced hole (Fig. 13a), but no cracking is observed around the FAWJ-pierced hole (Fig. 13b). There is no excessive TBC material removed by the FAWJ. The FAWJ drilled a uniform hole through both the TBC and the inconel substrate without exposing the underlying inconel substrate. Comparison of the results shown in Figs. 12 and

13 with the corresponding ones shown in [2] has clearly demonstrated the success in emulating the ACJ with the FAWJ in the mitigation of piercing damage, resulting from minimizing the piercing pressure through a phase change in the working fluid. One important characteristic is that the piercing pressure maximizes at the target surface. Therefore, for materials with marginally high strength, piercing damage is most likely to take place near the surface where the piercing pressure is the maximum. Among the composites we tested, there are two materials, melamine and FR4 fiberglass, that fall into the above category. Figure 14 shows the photos of AWJ- and FAWJ-pierced holes. The samples were parted along the plane of the hole axis, and the edge was polished with sandpapers down to 1,200 mesh. The scale shown in

Thermal barrier coating (1.3 mm) on inconel substrate (1.3 mm) 2.6 mm thick a. AWJ Top-entry #1 b. FAWJ

Top-entry #2

Bottom-exit

Top-entry #1

Top-entry #2

Bottom-exit

Fig. 13 AWJ-and FAWJ-pierced holes in TBC-coated inconel plate [3] (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/young-modulus-d_417.html)

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 42:263279

275

Melamine

FR4 fibreglass

Fig. 14 Holes pierced in two composites [3] (http://www.engineeringtoolbox. com/young-modulus-d_417.html)

the photos is in millimeters. For the AWJ-pierced hole, most delamination and cracking indeed takes place near the top surface. Delamination of the melamine top layers resulted in a large bulge on the surface with a diameter more than seven times that of the hole. When FAWJ was used, no delamination and cracking was observed around the holes in both materials. One of the most dramatic experiences was piercing in epoxy-impregnated fiberglass (G10) commonly used in electrical construction due to its high strength and nonconductive properties. Figure 15 shows from left to right the top surface (jet entry side), the cut-away side view, and the bottom (jet exit side) surface of the holes. Overlapping large delamination regions surrounding the AWJ-pierced hole are evident. The area of delamination increases toward

the interior of the sample with a maximum diameter of up to 120 mm. As soon as the AWJ penetrates the surface of the sample, delamination takes place, accompanied with a series of loud popping sounds (implosions). On the other hand, Fig. 15b shows that the G10 laminate does not delaminate around the FAWJ-pierced hole. In comparison, the middle photos in Fig. 15a and b show that delamination results in considerable thickening of the G10 composite. Figure 16 compares the holes pierced in the phenolic composite. There are surface and interior cracks induced by the AWJ, whereas no crack is observed in the FAWJpierced counterpart. Several other laminates and composites, including aluminumfoamaluminum, fiberglass composite, and others, were pierced with AWJs and FAWJs. The results all show that AWJs consistently cause delamination and/or cracking, whereas FAWJs do not [3]. Brittle materials, including glass, Plexiglas (acrylic), and stones, must be treated delicately when pierced with AWJs. A common failure of AWJ piercing occurs with float glass. Although the potential tensile strength of glass is about 690 MPa, failure occurs at average stresses far below this value (1470 MPa) because of the stress-raising effect of surface and subsurface imperfections, both inherent in the glass and mechanically created.12 Tests were conducted to pierce holes on a 25.4-mm-thick float glass and a 12.7-mmthick Plexiglas. Figure 17a illustrates the top and side view photos of AWJ- and FAWJ-pierced holes in the two materials. The first photo shows that glass broke into two halves along the axis of the hole during piercing. There is a large crack from the top surface down, forming a crater visible from the side view photos. A large piece of glass has chipped away two thirds down from the top. The second photo shows another AWJ-pierced hole. In this run, supplemental vacuum (SV) was activated. Multiple surface and subsurface cracks in the glass are evident. The third photo shows the side view of the broken AWJpierced hole with very complex surface geometry. The last three photos in Fig. 17a correspond to the AWJ-pierced hole in the Plexiglas. It is evident that AWJ piercing in Plexiglas also induced multiple cracks that originated from the wall of the hole. Note that the average tensile strength (rupture) for Plexiglas is 72 MPa, which is comparable to the upper range of glass.13 Unlike glass, however, the pieces did not break apart because the flexural strength of Plexiglas is about 110 MPa, which is approximately twice that of float glass. When the FAWJ was used to pierce holes in both materials, as illustrated in Fig. 17b, no cracking resulted even when the separation between holes was small (i.e., the first three photos).

b. FAWJ

a. AWJ

12 13

http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/pubs/cbd/cbd060_e.html. http://www.psmfg.com/page13.pdf.

276 Fig. 15 AWJ-and FAWJpierced holes in epoxyimpregnated fiberglass laminate9.5 mm thick [3] (http://www.engineeringtoolbox. com/young-modulus-d_417. html)

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 42:263279

b. FAWJ

a. AWJ

The large piercing pressure induced by the AWJ also causes damage in the form of cracking and chipping in thin glasses of different types. Figure 18 shows photos of holes pierced in one thin float glass and two stained glasses. Figure 18a shows that the AWJ-pierced workpieces display various small and large cracking and chipping damages. On the other hand, there is neither cracking nor chipping observed around the holes in the FAWJ-pierced counterparts, as can be observed clearly from Fig. 18b. Based on the results shown in Figs. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, the superior performance of the FAWJ in mitigating piercing damage in delicate materials is clearly demonstrated. Unlike pressure ramping and supplemental vacuum alone that are more or less black arts that must be tuned via trial and error for a given material, the FAWJ tackles the root of the problem by minimizing the piercing pressure induced in the initial stage of piercing before breakthrough. This is achieved by superheating the water locally just upstream of the nozzle (downstream of the pump). Under ultrahigh pressure, the superheated water remains in the liquid state upstream of the nozzle. It vaporizes as soon as it exits the orifice and continues evaporating as the FAWJ travels through the mixing tube. As such, only a small fraction of water enters the cavity, significantly reducing the piercing pressure inside the blind hole. As illustrated in Fig. 9, the reduction in the piercing pressure is quantifiable and proportional to the water temperature. At a hole depth of 10.5 mm, the piercing pressure induced by the FAWJ

operated at 276 MPa drops from 34 MPa to below 0.5 MPa at Tn =186. Such a low piercing pressure is below the ultimate strength of most engineering materials, ensuring the preservation of the structural integrity of the workpiece. Therefore, the key is to raise the water temperature to a temperature which ensures that the ultimate strength of the material will not be exceeded, according to the data presented in Fig. 9 and/or Table 1.

5 Summary This paper addresses issues of piercing damage induced by piercing pressure buildup in blind holes during the early stage of AWJ piercing before breakthrough. Piercing damage to target materials results in the form of surface/ subsurface cracking, chipping, and delamination as long as their ultimate strengths are weaker than the piercing pressure buildup inside blind holes. As the jet approaches the bottom of blind holes, the fluid decelerates, stops, and reverses it course and then exits through the hole entrance. During that process, kinetic energy of the jet converts into potential energy (due to pressure), and the piercing pressure develops inside the blind hole. The magnitude of the piercing pressure is inversely proportional to the local speed of the water. By definition, the maximum piercing pressure is the stagnation pressure at which the speed of the water vanishes.

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 42:263279 Fig. 16 Holes pierced in phenolic composite

277

By superheating the water in the AWJ, a flash AWJ or FAWJ was successfully developed [4, 5]. The FAWJ emulates the performance of the ACJ for mitigate piercing damage through rapid evaporation of the working fluid upon exiting the orifice and mixing tube. Only a small fraction of the water in the FAWJ enters the blind hole, resulting in a significant reduction of the piercing pressure. The structural integrity of the workpiece is preserved so long as its ultimate strength is higher than the piercing pressure. A special device was designed and fabricated to measure the piercing pressure beneath small holes having different hole depths and diameters. Highlights of the measurements show that: For a water-only jet operated at 345 MPa, the piercing pressure was measured between 140 and 170 MPa under a hole with 0.51-mm diameter and 2.6-mm depth. The piercing pressure decreases with increases in the hole depth, as predicted by the CFD simulation [8] and verified by the experimental data (Fig. 6a). The extrapolated piercing pressure at the target surface is about 180 MPa (Fig. 7). This pressure is higher than the ultimate tensile strength of many common engineering materials, particularly brittle materials such as glass, composites, and laminates (Fig 8 and Table 1). The piercing pressure deceases when a simulated abrasive of baking powder was entrained into the waterjet (Fig. 6b). The reduction in the piercing pressure results from the decrease in the kinetic energy of water, since a part of this energy is consumed to accelerate the baking powder. Therefore, the piercing pressure would be lower for the AWJ than for the WJ.

a. AWJ

b. FAWJ

Float glass 25.4 mm thick

Plexiglas (acrylic) 12.7 mm thick

a. AWJ Top-entry

Top-entry (SV)

Side

Top-entry

Top-entry (SV)

Side

b. FAWJ Top-entry

Bottom-exit

Side

Top-entry

Bottom-exit

Side

Fig. 17 Holes pierced in float glass and Plexiglas [3] SV means supplemental vacuum is activated

278

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 42:263279

Thin float glass 0.8 mm thick

Stained glass (tinted) 3.7 mm thick

Stained glass (opique) 3.7 mm thick

a. AWJ b. FAWJ

Top-entry (#1) Bottom-exit (#1) Top-entry (#1) Bottom-exit (#1) Top-entry (#1) Bottom-exit (#1)

Top-entry (#2) Bottom-exit (#2) Top-entry (#2) Bottom-exit (#2) Top-entry (#2) Bottom-exit (#2)

Top-entry

Bottom-exit

Top-entry

Bottom-exit

Top-entry

Bottom-exit

Fig. 18 Holes pierced with AWJ and FAWJ in three different types of thin glasses

For the FAWJ, the piercing pressure decreases with an increase in the water temperature. For Tn 186C, the piercing pressure reduces to below 0.5 MPa at which most material would survive without subject to piercing damage. The abrasive speed in the FAWJ is lower than that in the AWJ, since the phase change of the superheated water exiting the orifice and moving through the mixing tube reduces the efficiency in accelerating the entrained abrasives (Fig. 10). Since the FAWJ is used only during piercing, a very small fraction of the total time for machining a part, the loss in the erosive power of the FAWJ would not have significant impact on the time and costs of the waterjet machining process.

composites. Such damage severely affects the mechanical strength of machined parts and raises the part ejection percentage. There is no piercing damage on the same parts pierced with FAWJs operated at the same pressure. The improved performance correlates well with the experimental results that the piercing pressure reduces with the water temperature in the FAWJ. The mitigation of piercing damage correlates well with the significant reduction in the piercing pressure induced by the superheated FAWJ. Piercing pressure of 0.5 MPa or lower (below the ultimate tensile strength of most engineering materials) is achievable and expected to preserve the structural integrity of most materials.

Small holes were pierced with both AWJs and FAWJs operated at 276 MPa in more than 20 sample materials that were known to be susceptive to piercing damage from AWJs. Photos of these holes were examined visually to determine the damaging effect of AWJ-induced piercing pressure on several delicate materials. The test results clearly demonstrated the superior performance of FAWJs to AWJs in mitigating piercing damage to those materials. The most important findings are summarized below. Visual examination of the holes pierced with AWJs operated at full pressure has led to different forms of piercing damage, including surface/subsurface cracks in float glass and Plexiglas and delamination in various

Although both the LN2-based ACJ and the FAWJ have demonstrated their advantage over the AWJ for mitigating piercing damage, the FAWJ is considerably less bulky, more cost-effective and user-friendly, and safer to operate than the ACJ. The FAWJ is expected to be the missing link to help fully realize the potential of waterjet technology as a truly material-independent, precision machine tool. Such a unique property would lead to the development of a one-inall and all-in-one machine tool for all materials. This would further promote the growth of waterjet technology for machining advanced materials. A prototype FAWJ is currently under fabrication and testing. One of the end

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 42:263279

279 sites Manufacturing 2007 Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah, April 11th Hashish M (1996) A study on deep hole metal boring with abrasive waterjets. SME Conf NAMRC XXIV, Technical Paper No. MR96116, Ann Arbor Michigan, May 2123, 6 pp Guo Z, Ramulu M (2001) Investigation of displacement fields in an abrasive waterjet drilling process: part 1. Experimental measurements. Exp Mech 41(4):375 387 doi:10.1007/ BF02323932 Hashish M (2002) Drilling deep, small-diameter hole drilling using abrasive-waterjets. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Water Jetting, Aix en Provence, France, October 1618, pp 103117 Ramulu M, Posinasetti P, Hashish M (2005) Analysis of the abrasive waterjet drilling process, Paper 5A-2, Proceedings of the 2005 American Waterjet Conference, Houston, Texas, August 21 23 Liu H-T (2006) Empirical modeling of hole piercing with abrasive waterjets. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Water Jetting, Gdansk, Poland, September 1315 Liu H-T, Fang S, Hibbard C (1999) Enhancement of ultrahighpressure technology with LN2 cryogenic jets. Proceedings of the 10th American Waterjet Conference, Houston, Texas, August 14 17 Dunsky CM, Hashish M, Liu H-T (1997) Development of a vanishing abrasive cryogenic jet (VACJET). Proceedings of the 1997 DoD/Industry Coatings Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, May 1315 Liu H-T, Miles P, Hibbard C, Cooksey N (1999) Measurements of water-droplets and abrasive speeds in waterjets and abrasive waterjets. Proceedings of the 10th American Waterjet Conference, Houston, Texas, August 1417

products would be an add-on kit to retrofit OMAXs existing AWJ systems with the FAWJ option.
Acknowledgment This work is supported by an NSF SBIR Phase I and II Grants No. 0512066 and 0620277. The authors wish to thank Drs. John Cheung, Axel Henning, John Olsen, Jay Zeng, Scott Veenhuizen, and Messrs. Darren Stang and Thomas Knapp for providing technical supports and critiques to the R&D work. Messrs. David McNiel and Ryan Boehm, respectively, undergraduate students of Kettering University and University of Washington and supported by an NSF REU grant, assisted in carrying out laboratory experiments.

6.

7.

8.

9.

References
1. Liu H-T, Miles P, Veenhuizen SD (1998) CFD and physical modeling of UHP AWJ drilling. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Jetting Technology, Brugge, Belgium, September 2123, pp 1524 2. Liu H-T (2007) Hole drilling with abrasive fluidjets. Int J Adv Manuf Tech 32:942957 doi:10.1007/s001770-005-0398-x 3. Liu H-T (2006) Collateral damage by stagnation pressure buildup during abrasive-fluidjet piercing. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference On Water Jetting, Gdansk, Poland, September 1315 4. Liu P (H-T) (2007) Flash vaporization water jet and piercing with flash vaporization. US Patent Application Number 20080060493 5. Liu H-T (2007) Flash abrasive-waterjets for mitigating piercing damage in composites. Technical Presentation at the SME Westec Conference, Los Angeles, California, March 28th, and Compo10.

11.

12.

13.