applied
sciences
Article
Simple Approach for Evaluation of Abrasive Mixing Efficiency
for Abrasive Waterjet Rock Cutting
Yohan Cha 1 , Tae-Min Oh 2 , Hyun-Joong Hwang 3






Citation: Cha, Y.; Oh, T.-M.;
Hwang, H.-J.; Cho, G.-C. Simple
Approach for Evaluation of Abrasive
Mixing Efficiency for Abrasive
Waterjet Rock Cutting. Appl. Sci. 2021,
11, 1543. https://doi.org/10.3390/
app11041543
Academic Editor: José Correia
Received: 12 January 2021
Accepted: 5 February 2021
Published: 8 February 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1543. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11041543
and Gye-Chun Cho 3, *
1 Deep Subsurface Research Center, Geologic Environment Division, Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral
Resources (KIGAM), Daejeon 34132, Korea; ycha@kigam.re.kr
2 Department of Civil Engineering, Pusan National University (PNU), Busan 46241, Korea;
geotaemin@pusan.ac.kr
3 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and
Technology (KAIST), Daejeon 34141, Korea; hyunjoong@kaist.ac.kr
* Correspondence: gyechun@kaist.ac.kr
Abstract: The abrasive mixing variables, such as the abrasive and water flow rates and the focus
geometry parameters, determine the profitability of an abrasive waterjet system. In this study, the
mixing efficiency characteristics in abrasive waterjet rock cutting were investigated. To demonstrate
comprehensively the efficiency reduction due to collision during abrasive mixing, the chance of
collision was expressed as the distance between the abrasive particles in the focus. The mixing
efficiency was then assessed by utilizing the empirical relationship between the experimental results
and the developed model. Based on the particle density and the velocity, the closer particles showed
higher chances of collision, thus yielding a reduced cutting performance. Using the distance between
particles model, the optimum abrasive flow rate and the cutting performance of abrasive waterjet
systems can be estimated. This developed model can be used for the design selection of abrasive
flow rate and systems for the cost-effective use of abrasive waterjets.
Keywords: abrasive waterjet; abrasive mixing; mixing efficiency; rock cutting; abrasive flow rate
1. Introduction
Abrasive waterjets are used to cut target materials using high-velocity abrasives by
accelerating them with high-pressure and high-velocity water. Although such waterjets
are mainly used for cutting metals and ceramics, their geotechnical applications such
as rock cutting, excavation, asphalt resurfacing, pavement adhesion improvement, and
road stripe removal have recently increased [1–3]. In particular, since the cutting force
can be controlled, it is possible to demolish concrete without damaging the internal steel
reinforcement [4,5]. In addition, abrasive waterjets are suitable for urban construction
because of their low noise and vibration compared to those in mechanical excavation (e.g.,
rock blasting and breaking). However, the cost of the abrasive reaches approximately
60% of the total operation cost [6]. Efforts have been made to evaluate the effects of the
abrasive waterjet parameters on the cost [7–9] and to recycle abrasives after recollection
and drying [10,11]. The abrasive cost can be reduced by using the optimum abrasive flow
rate (AFR) and by using a system design with a high mixing efficiency. The optimum AFR
has been estimated at the maximum cutting rate. If 80% of the maximum cutting rate is
achieved with 50% of the optimum AFR, the economical AFR is 50% of the optimum AFR.
The cutting energy of an abrasive waterjet is a function of the AFR, and the system
design determines its characteristics [12,13]. The optimum AFR is a function of the im-
pact frequency, the terminal velocity, and the kinetic energy of the abrasive through the
relationship between the mixing efficiency and energy [14,15]. Meanwhile, optimizing
the focus shape improves the mixing efficiency, where the momentum of the water is
transferred to the abrasive [16]. In principle, the length and diameter of the focus at which
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1543 2 of 15

the abrasive is mixed are the main mixing and acceleration variables that affect the cutting
energy and the optimum AFR [17–19]. In other words, an economical system design is
achieved through an optimal combination of focus length, focus diameter, and orifice
diameter [20]. Therefore, evaluation of the mixing variables is required to enable mixing
efficiency adjustment. The focus keeps the abrasive in the water jet during acceleration,
but abrasive friction with the inner surface of the focus and abrasive particle collisions
reduce the mixing efficiency [19]. Abrasive experience breakdown (i.e., disintegration)
is caused by friction and collisions [21]. Abrasive breakdown increases with increasing
pump pressure, AFR, or focus length [11]. These relations indicate that the abrasives are
involved in the damping mechanics depending on the abrasive density in the focus [19,22].
The water flow rate (WFR)–AFR ratio and the focus geometry (e.g., diameter and length)
affect the abrasive breakdown, thereby reducing the abrasive mixing efficiency. Thus, AFR
and waterjet system optimization begins by determining the characteristics of the mixing
variables (e.g., WFR, AFR, and focus geometry). The orifice diameter and pump pressure
determine the WFR [23], and the focus diameter and WFR are major factors affecting the
cutting quality [17]. The larger the focus diameter, the larger the jet diameter, which affects
the groove frequency and striation on the cutting surface, resulting in large changes in the
surface profile amplitude [24]. Analysis of variance on the effects of the focus and orifice
has shown that 98% of the cutting width and roughness results from the focus diameter
and the AFR [18,25,26]. The abrasive mixing efficiency is the characteristic that is the most
strongly affected by the AFR, and the larger the focus diameter, the higher the optimum
AFR [15]. Moreover, the larger focus diameter reduces the energy that accelerates the
abrasive [27]. As a result of evaluating the overall effects of the WFR and focus diameter,
the economically optimum ratio between the orifice and focus diameter was determined to
be three times [28]. Table 1 summarizes the literature on the effects of the focus geometry,
the AFR, and the WFR on an abrasive waterjet.

Table 1. Previous studies of the effects of the mixing variables on an abrasive waterjet.

Variables Findings Reference

Focus geometry
Focus geometry–abrasive flow
rate (AFR)
Focus geometry–AFR
Flow rate–focus geometry
Focus–orifice geometry
Focus geometry
Focus geometry
Focus geometry–AFR
Focus and orifice geometry–AFR
The focus geometry affects the momentum
[16]
transfer efficiency.
The optimal mixing efficiency is
determined in the space in which [7]
mixing occurs.
The optimum AFR is a function of pressure,
and the focus diameter affects the [22]
power density.
The economically optimum focus diameter
[28]
is three times the orifice diameter.
The focus diameter affects the surface
roughness and determines 98% of the [25]
cutting width.
The surface profile amplitude and surface
roughness mainly depend on the [11]
focus diameter.
The focus diameter is the dominant
parameter affecting the cutting width and [18]
the surface roughness.
A larger ratio between the diameters of the
focus and abrasive particles reduces the [27]
acceleration energy.
The AFR affects the mixing efficiency more
strongly than the focus and the water flow [5]
rate (WFR).
Appl.
Appl.Sci.
Sci.2021, 11,11,
2021, xx FOR
FORPEER
PEERREVIEW
REVIEW 3 3ofof1515
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1543 3 of 15

The
Themixing
mixingefficiency
efficiencyofofananabrasive
abrasiveisisdetermined
determinedby bythe theabrasive–abrasive
abrasive–abrasiveand and
The mixing
abrasive–focus
abrasive–focus efficiency
inner
inner surface
surface of an abrasive
collisions.
collisions. is determined
However,
However, studies by
studiesthatthatthe abrasive–abrasive
comprehensively
comprehensively and
demon-
demon-
abrasive–focus
strate
stratethe inner surface
thecharacteristics
characteristics ofofthe collisions.
themixing However,
mixingefficiency
efficiency studies that
considering
considering thecomprehensively
the WFR,
WFR,the theAFR,
AFR,anddemon-
andthe
the
strate
focus the
focusdiametercharacteristics
diametersimultaneously of
simultaneouslyarethe mixing efficiency
arescarce.
scarce.Under considering
Underideal idealmixing
mixingandthe WFR, the
andacceleration, AFR,
acceleration,the and the
theabra-
abra-
focus
sive diameter
siveisiscompletely
completely simultaneously
surrounded
surroundedby are scarce.
bywater
waterand Under
and ideal mixing
accelerated
accelerated withoutandinterference.
without acceleration, the
interference.Figure abra-
Figure 11
sive is
provides completely
providesa aconceptual surrounded
conceptualillustration by water
illustrationofofabrasive and accelerated
abrasiveacceleration, without
acceleration,showingshowingthe interference. Figure
thecharacteristics
characteristicsofof1
provides
the
themixing
mixing a variables.
conceptual
variables.The illustration
The AFR
AFRand andof
the abrasive
the focus acceleration,
focusdiameter
diameter affectshowing
affect the
thechance
chancetheofof
characteristics
collision
collisionasasa a
of the
function mixing
functionofofthe variables.
theabrasive
abrasivedensityThe AFR
densityininthe and the
thefocus. focus
focus.The TheWFR diameter
WFRand andthe affect
theAFR the chance
AFRdetermine
determinethe ofthe
collision
mixing
mixing
as
time a function
timeforforwhich of
whichthe the abrasive
theabrasive
abrasiveremains density in
remainsininthe the focus.
thefocus
focusbecauseThe WFR and
becauseititdetermines the
determinesthe AFR determine
theabrasive the
abrasiveveloc-
veloc-
mixing
ity.
ity.The time
Thelonger for
longerthe which the
theabrasive abrasive
abrasiveremains remains
remainsininthe in
thefocus, the
focus,the focus because
thehigher
higherthe it determines
thecollision
collisionfrequency.the abrasive
frequency.Thus,
Thus,
velocity.
the
theeffects
effectsThe longer
ofofthe the abrasive
themixing
mixing variables
variablesremains
ononthethein the focus,behavior
geometric
geometric the higher
behavior ofofthe
thethecollision
abrasive
abrasive frequency.
were
wereex-ex-
Thus,
pressed.
pressed.theTheeffects
The of the
distance
distance mixingparticles
between
between variables on
particles(DBP)(DBP)theinin
geometric
the
thefocus behavior
focuscancanrepresent of the
represent theabrasive
themixing
mixing were
effi-
effi-
expressed.
ciency The
ciencyasasa afunction distance
function ofofthe
thebetween
collisionparticles
collision chance. (DBP)
Figure2in
chance.Figure the focus
2shows
shows the can represent of
thecharacteristics
characteristics the mixing
ofthe
theDBP
DBP
efficiency
and as a functionAs of the AFR
collision chance.the Figure 2decreases
shows the characteristics of the DBP
andmixing
mixingvariables.
variables. Asthe the AFRincreases,
increases, theDBP DBP decreases(e.g., (e.g.,DBP1–DBP2).
DBP1–DBP2).As Asthe
the
and mixing variables. As the AFR increases, the DBP decreases (e.g., DBP1–DBP2). As the
focus
focusdiameter
diameterororWFR WFRincreases,
increases,the theDBP
DBPincreases
increases(e.g.,(e.g.,DBP2–DBP3
DBP2–DBP3and andDBP3–DBP4).
DBP3–DBP4).
focus diameter or WFR increases, the DBP increases (e.g., DBP2–DBP3 and DBP3–DBP4).
AAhighhighDBP DBPmeansmeansthat thatthe theabrasive
abrasiveparticles
particlesare arefarfarfrom
fromeacheachother,
other,sosothe thechance
chanceofof
A high DBP means that the abrasive particles are far from each other, so the chance of
collision
collisionisislowlowand andthethemixing
mixingefficiency
efficiencyisishigh.high.As Assuch,
such,thetheintuitive
intuitivecharacteristics
characteristicsofof
collision is low and the mixing efficiency is high. As such, the intuitive characteristics of
the
theabrasive
abrasivemixingmixingefficiency
efficiencycan canbebeexpressed
expressedininterms termsofofthe theDBP.
DBP.InInaddition,
addition,because
because
the abrasive mixing efficiency can be expressed in terms of the DBP. In addition, because
the
theconcept
conceptofofspace spaceoccupied
occupiedby bya asingle
singleparticle
particlewas wasintroduced
introducedtotodefine definethe thespace
spaceinin
the concept of space occupied by a single particle was introduced to define the space in
which
whichthe theabrasives
abrasivesindependently
independentlyremain, remain,not notonly
onlyabrasive–abrasive
abrasive–abrasivecollisions collisionsbutbutalso
also
which the abrasives independently remain, not only abrasive–abrasive collisions but also
abrasive–focus
abrasive–focuscollisions
collisionscan canbebeconsidered.
considered.
abrasive–focus collisions can be considered.

Abrasive
Abrasiveparticle
particle

Space
Spaceofofoccupied
occupiedbyby
abrasive
abrasiveparticle
particle

Distance
Distancebetween
betweenabrasive
abrasiveparticles
particles(DBP)
(DBP)
Figure 1. Conceptual illustration of the distance between particles (DBP) in the focus.
Figure
Figure1.1.Conceptual
Conceptualillustration
illustrationofofthe
thedistance
distancebetween
betweenparticles
particles(DBP)
(DBP)ininthe
thefocus.
focus.

: 0.76
: 0.76mmmm : 0.76
: 0.76mmmm
: 3.0
: 3.0g/s
g/s : 7.0
: 7.0g/s
g/s
: 10.67
: 10.67g/s
g/s : 10.67
: 10.67g/s
g/s

: 1.02
: 1.02mmmm : 1.02
: 1.02mm mm
: 7.0
: 7.0g/s
g/s : 7.0
: 7.0g/s
g/s
: 10.67
: 10.67g/s
g/s : 29.50
: 29.50g/s
g/s

Figure
Figure2.2.2.DBP
Figure DBPaccording
DBP accordingto
according toAFR,
to AFR,WFR,
AFR, WFR,and
WFR, andfocus
and focusdiameter.
focus diameter.
diameter.

InInthis
In thisstudy,
this study,the
study, themixing
the mixingvariables,
mixing variables,developed
variables, developedusing
developed usingaaatheoretical
using theoreticalmodel
theoretical modelofof
model ofthe
theDBP,
the DBP,
DBP,
were
wereexperimentally
were experimentallyevaluated,
experimentally evaluated,and and
andthe
themixing
the mixing
mixing efficiency
efficiency
efficiencywas
was estimated
wasestimated
estimatedbased
basedon
based onthe
there-
on re-
the
lationship
lationshipbetween
relationship between
between the
the
therock
rockcutting
rock cutting
cuttingrate
rateand
rate and
and the
theDBP.
the DBP.Through
DBP. Throughaaaparametric
Through parametricstudy
parametric studyof
study ofthe
of the
the
developed
developedmodel,
developed model,the
model, theeffects
the effectsof
effects ofthe
of themixing
the mixingvariables
mixing variableswere
variables werereviewed
were reviewedacross
reviewed acrosswide
across wideranges
wide rangesof
ranges ofof
the
thevariables.
the variables.The
variables. Thedeveloped
The developedmodel
developed modelusing
model usingthe
using theDBP
the DBPcan
DBP canintuitively
can intuitivelyrepresent
intuitively representthe
represent theeffects
the effectsof
effects ofof
the
the mixing
themixing variables.
mixingvariables. Using
variables.Using this
Usingthis model,
thismodel, the
model,the cutting
thecutting performance
cuttingperformance
performancecan can be
canbe predicted
bepredicted through
predictedthrough
through
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1543 4 of 15

the relationship between the input energy and the mixing efficiency, and the optimum AFR
can be estimated. This approach can be employed for AFR and waterjet system design
selection for low cost and high efficiency.

2. Abrasive in the Focus

2.1. Number of Abrasive Particles in the Focus
Based on Bernoulli’s principle, high-pressure water produced by a pump reaches a
high velocity as it exits the narrow inlet of an orifice [29]. Considering the energy loss as
the resistance constant (K), which is affected by the orifice size and shape, the initial water
velocity (vw,0 ) can be expressed as follows [23,30]:
s
2g
vw,o = (1 − K ) pw , (1)
γ

where g is the gravitational acceleration, γ is the unit weight of water, and pw is the pressure
of the pump-generated water. The resistance constant is about 0.25 and 0.5 for square
and sharp edges, respectively, and ranges from 0.04 to 0.28 for rounded orifices. A typical
orifice has a square edge shape [31,32].
After the high-velocity water is generated, the abrasive is injected. When the abrasive
accelerates, the momentum of the water is transferred to the abrasives according to the
momentum balance and continuity equation for water and solid flow, which increases
the momentum of the abrasives accordingly [23,33]. This approach, which utilizes water
and abrasive mass, can be applied to calculate the equation for inputting energy. The exit
velocity (velocity at which the abrasive leaves the focus after mixing) and acceleration of
the abrasive are affected by the size and density of the abrasive. However, for easy and
general calculation, the terminal velocity (vt ) at which the velocities of the water and the
abrasive become theoretically equal is considered as the abrasive velocity and is calculated
as follows [34–36]:
. . . . .

mw vw,o to = mw vw to + m a v a to = mw + m a vt to , (2)

where vw and v a are the velocities of the water and the abrasive, respectively; to is the
.
operating time (i.e., time for which the abrasive is injected); mw is the water flow rate; and
.
m a is the AFR.
The abrasive is accelerated and mixed in the mixing chamber or the focus. During
mixing, the mixing efficiency varies depending on the mixing variables such as the water
. .
flow rate (mw ), the AFR (m a ), and the focus geometry. The mixing efficiency is expressed
by the momentum transfer parameter (ηt ), which is the most influenced by the AFR
(Cha et al. 2020). The terminal velocity (vt ) considering the momentum transfer parameter
is expressed as [31,37]:
vw,o
v t = ηt . .
. (3)
1 + m a /mw
Theoretically, the velocities of the abrasive and water reach the terminal velocity
during the early phase of acceleration. The abrasive travels most of the time inside the
focus at terminal velocity. The mixing time (t f ) is the time for which the abrasive is
accelerated and mixed in the focus. In other words, the time taken for the abrasive to exit
the focus can be expressed as follows in terms of the focus length (l f ) and terminal velocity:

t f = l f /vt . (4)

Substituting Equation (3) into Equation (4), the total number of abrasive particles in
unit time (Np, f ) can be obtained as:
. . . .

Np, f = m a t f /m p = m a 1 + m a /mw l f /m p ηt vw,o , (5)
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1543 5 of 15

where, m p is the mass of a single abrasive particle.

2.2. Distance between Abrasive Particles in the Focus

In the focus, the abrasive particles move and are independently located in each space,
as shown in Figure 1. The volume occupied by a single particle (Vs ) depends on the volume
inside the focus (Vf ocus ) and the total number of abrasives within the focus (Np, f ):

π 2 .
Vs = Vf ocus /Np, f = d f l f m p /m a t f , (6)
4
where d f is the focus diameter and l f is the focus length.
Assuming that the abrasives are uniformly distributed and are spherical-shaped with
a volume Vs , they are all circumscribed. Thus, the distance between the centers of Vs is the
diameter of Vs . Considering the abrasive diameter (d p ), the DBP becomes:
p
3
DBP = Vs ·6/π − d p . (7)

Substituting Equation (6) into Equation (7), the DBP in the focus is represented by
the AFR, the focus geometry, the abrasive diameter and mass, and the terminal velocity,
as follows: r
3 3 2 .
DBP = d l m p /m a t f − d p . (8)
2 f f
The main energy of the abrasive waterjet for material removal comes from the acceler-
ated abrasive particles. In terms of the AFR and the terminal velocity, the kinetic energy of
the abrasive per second (Ea ) can be expressed as:

1 . 2
Ea = m a vt . (9)
2
Based on kinetic energy per unit second (Ea ) and cutting depth (D), the energy required
to cut a unit depth (ε) as a function of the DBP is assumed to be:

Ea /D = ε = α(DBP) β , (10)

where α and β are an empirically determined constant and an exponent, respectively, and ε
is the energy required to cut one unit depth of rock.
The cutting depth is affected by the mixing efficiency. As shown in Equation (8),
it is possible to demonstrate the relationship between the kinetic energy removal and
the experimental results in consideration of the focus geometry, the AFR, and the WFR.
This model can also be expressed by the pump pressure using Equation (1). Through
this study, the mixing variables can be expressed comprehensively. This model defines
the energy in unit time, rather than the mixing time t f , to intuitively show the mass and
velocity of the abrasive. At a high AFR, the kinetic energy decreases as the terminal velocity
decreases, whereas t f increases. However, a limitation of this approach is that the ideal
case of abrasive-fluid behavior is assumed in the developed model. The mixing is greatly
affected by the turbulent flow, the viscosity of the fluid, and the physical properties of the
abrasive as well as collision and friction. Therefore, the empirical relationship between the
simple theoretical approach and the experimental results is shown in this study. Eventually,
further studies regarding the effect of geometrical and frictional loss of both water and
abrasive within the focus are required to overcome this limitation.

3. Experimental Program
3.1. Test Cases and Setup
To evaluate the mixing efficiency and cutting performance according to the DBP in
the focus, the main variables used were the focus diameter, the orifice diameter, and the
AFR. The focus diameter and the terminal velocity of the abrasive were controlled. To
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1543 6 of 15

evaluate these variables considering the applicability, commercial product sizes, which
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW
are popular in the waterjet industry, were used. Figure 3 shows the orifices and focuses 6 of 15
used in the experiment. Sapphire orifices with diameters of 0.15, 0.254, and 0.33 mm and
WFRs of 10.67, 29.50, and 50.00 mL/s were utilized at a pressure of 320 MPa. For each
WFR, tungsten
tungsten carbidecarbide focuses
focuses with with diameters
diameters of 0.76,
of 0.76, 0.91, 0.91, and 1.02
and 1.02 mm mm werewere employed.
employed. The
The
AFRAFR
was was controlled
controlled by Venturi
by Venturi suction
suction according
according to thetoWFR
the WFR and pressure
and pressure from from
a mini-a
minimum
mum of 3.3 ofg/s
3.3to
g/s to a maximum
a maximum of 29of 29Table
g/s. g/s. Table
2 lists2the
lists the details
details of theof the experimental
experimental cases,
cases, including
including the WFR,
the WFR, the and
the AFR, AFR,the
and the focus
focus diameter.
diameter.

Figure3.3. Orifices
Figure Orificesand
andfocuses.
focuses.

Table 2. Abrasive waterjet operation conditions and experimental cases.

Table 2. Abrasive waterjet operation conditions and experimental cases.
Orifice Diameter (mm) 0.15 0.254 0.33
Orifice Diameter (mm) 0.15 0.254 0.33
WFR (mL/s) WFR (mL/s) 10.67 10.67 29.5029.50 50.00
50.00
Focus diameter (mm) 0.76 1.02 0.76 0.91 1.02 0.76 0.91 1.02
Focus diameter (mm) 0.76 1.02 0.76 0.91 1.02 0.76 0.91 1.02
3.3 3.3 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.4 4.5 5.2
3.3 3.3 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.4 4.5 5.2
4.4 4.5
4.4 4.57.1 7.1 7.5 7.5 5.0 5.0 7.47.4 10.2
10.2 10.5
10.5
5.6 11.0
5.6 11.012.0 12.0 8.6 8.6 12.5
12.5 13.3
13.3 15.3
15.3
AFR (g/s) AFR (g/s)
6.6 6.6
13.0 13.015.5 15.5 14.014.0 20.0
20.0 1.3
1.3 18.8
18.8
7.9 20.0 18.0 24.0 24.0 24.4 23.2
7.9 20.0 18.0 24.0 24.0 24.4 23.2
10.0 29.0 25.0
10.0 29.0 25.0
Pump pressure (MPa) 320
Pump pressure (MPa) 320

An
An abrasive
abrasive injection
injection waterjet
waterjet (AWJ)
(AWJ) consists
consists of
of aa pump
pump section
section and
and an
anabrasive
abrasive
waterjet
waterjet system.
system. Figure
Figure 44 depicts
depicts the
theintensifier
intensifierpump
pumpand andthe
theabrasive
abrasivewaterjet
waterjetsystem
system
used
used in
in the experiment. The
the experiment. Thepump
pumpcapacity
capacityusedusedwas
was 5050
HPHPof of hydraulic
hydraulic power
power andandthe
the waterjet could produce 6 mL/s of water with a maximum pressure
waterjet could produce 6 mL/s of water with a maximum pressure of 420 MPa. In a sus- of 420 MPa. In a
suspension waterjet (slurry waterjet; SWJ), a high-pressure pump applies
pension waterjet (slurry waterjet; SWJ), a high-pressure pump applies pressure to a mix- pressure to a
mixture of water and abrasive, whereas in an AWJ, which was used in this
ture of water and abrasive, whereas in an AWJ, which was used in this study for rock study for rock
cutting,
cutting,the
thepump
pumpapplies
appliespressure
pressureonly
onlyto to
thethe
water
waterandand
thethe
water accelerates
water the abrasive.
accelerates the abra-
AWJs are more suitable for civil engineering purposes, such as rock excavation,
sive. AWJs are more suitable for civil engineering purposes, such as rock excavation, because be-
the system is relatively simple and occupies a small space.
cause the system is relatively simple and occupies a small space.
3.2. Abrasive and Rock Specimen
Figure 5a shows the abrasive, pyrope-type Indian garnet. It is composed of Mg3 Al2 (SiO4 )3 ,
and its specific gravity is 3.79. The abrasive particles remaining on the 80th sieve were
utilized to ensure a uniform abrasive diameter, as the DBP is affected by the abrasive
diameter (Equation (8)). The particle size distribution indicates a mean particle size of
0.18 mm, as shown in Figure 5b [38,39]. Table 3 provides the details of the abrasive.
 Appl.Sci.
Appl. Sci.2021,
2021, 11,
11, x FOR PEER REVIEW
1543 77ofof1515

Figure 4. Experimental setup for abrasive waterjet rock cutting with pump and abrasive waterjet system.

3.2. Abrasive and Rock Specimen

Figure 5a shows the abrasive, pyrope-type Indian garnet. It is composed of
Mg3Al2(SiO4)3, and its specific gravity is 3.79. The abrasive particles remaining on the 80th
sieve were utilized to ensure a uniform abrasive diameter, as the DBP is affected by the
Figure 4. Experimental setup for abrasive waterjet rock cutting with pump and abrasive waterjet system.
abrasive
Figure 4. Experimental setupdiameter (Equation
for abrasive (8)). cutting
waterjet rock The particle size and
with pump distribution indicates
abrasive waterjet a mean particle
system.
size of 0.18 mm, as shown in Figure 5b [38,39]. Table 3 provides the details of the abrasive.
3.2. Abrasive and Rock Specimen 100

Figure 5a shows the abrasive, pyrope-type Indian garnet. It is composed of

Particle distribution rate [%]
80
Mg3Al2(SiO4)3, and its specific gravity is 3.79. The abrasive particles remaining on the 80th
60
sieve were utilized to ensure a uniform abrasive diameter, as the DBP is affected by the
abrasive diameter (Equation (8)). The
40
particle size distribution indicates a mean particle
size of 0.18 mm, as shown in Figure 5b [38,39]. Table 3 provides the details of the abrasive.
20
100

080
Particle distribution rate [%]

0.425 0.25 0.18 0.15 0.075

60 Particle size [mm]

(a) 40
(b)
Figure5.
Figure 5. Abrasives
Abrasives for
for the
the experiment:
experiment: (a)
(a) India
India garnet;
garnet; (b)
(b) particle
particle size
size distribution.
distribution.
20

Table3.3. Abrasive
Table Abrasiveproperties.
properties. 0
0.425 0.25 0.18 0.15 0.075
Abrasive
Abrasive type
Type Source Specific
Source SpecificGravity
Particle
Gravity Mean
MeanParticle
size [mm] ParticleSize (mm)
Size (mm)
(a) Pyrope garnet Mg3Al2(SiO4)3 India 3.79 (b) 0.18 (Mesh size 80)
Pyrope garnet Mg3 Al2 (SiO4 )3 India 3.79 0.18 (Mesh size 80)
Figure 5. Abrasives for the
The rock experiment:
specimens (a) cut
to be India garnet;
were (b) particle
granite size distribution.
with dimensions of 150 150 300 mm.
The rock specimens to be cut were granite with dimensions
As granite is the most common rock in Korea, it was selected considering theof 150 × 150 × 300 mm.
practical
Table
As 3. Abrasive
granite is of properties.
thewaterjet
most common rock in Korea, it was selectedwere
considering
applications rock cutting. The granite specimens quarriedthe
at practical
the same
applications of waterjet rock cutting. The granite specimens were quarried at the same
depth to ensure
Abrasiveuniform
typephysical properties. As shown
Source Specific in TableMean
Gravity 4, theParticle
uniaxialSize
compres-
(mm)
depth to ensure uniform physical properties. As shown in Table 4, the uniaxial compressive
sive Pyrope
strengthgarnet
(UCS)Mg of the granite
3Al2(SiO4)3 specimen was 236 MPa, the shear strength was 23 MPa,
strength (UCS) of the granite specimenIndia
was 236 MPa, 3.79 0.18 (Mesh
the shear strength was 23size
MPa,80)and
and the tensile strength was 12 MPa; hence, it was classified as very strong rock [40,41].
the tensile strength was 12 MPa; hence, it was classified as very strong rock [40,41]. The
The specific
The gravity
rock was 2.65,
specimens to be the
cutabsorption
were ratio ratio
granite withrelated to voids was
dimensions 150 0.27%, and the
specific gravity was 2.65, the absorption related to voids wasof0.27%, 150 the
and 300 mm.
shore
shore hardness
As granite was 114.
hardness wasis114.
the most common rock in Korea, it was selected considering the practical
applications of waterjet rock cutting. The granite specimens were quarried at the same
Table
depth Granite
4. to ensurespecimen properties.
uniform physical properties. As shown in Table 4, the uniaxial compres-
sive strength (UCS) of the granite specimen was 236 MPa, the shear strength was 23 MPa,
Shear Tensile
and the tensile strength was 12 MPa; hence, it was classifiedAbsorption
UCS as very strong rock
Shore[40,41].
Strength Strength Specific Gravity
(MPa)
The specific gravity Ratio (%) Hardness
(MPa) was 2.65,(MPa)
the absorption ratio related to voids was 0.27%, and the
shore hardness was 114.
236 23 12 2.65 0.27 114

3.3. Test Procedure

The orifice was located inside the waterjet assembly for withstanding the high-pressure
fluid, whereas the focus was simply attached outside. For efficiency, the experiment was
 3.3. Test Procedure
The orifice was located inside the waterjet assembly for withstanding the hi
sure fluid, whereas the focus was simply attached outside. For efficiency, the exp
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1543 8 of 15
was streamlined in the order of AFR control, focus change, and orifice change. T
error was minimized by measuring the time required to consume 200 g of abrasive
three times. The rock was cut once in one direction from the outside to the insid
streamlined in the order of AFR control, focus change, and orifice change. The AFR error
granite specimen, as shown in Figure 6. The jetting system could move at speed
was minimized by measuring the time required to consume 200 g of abrasive at least three
16 mm/s,
times. andwas
The rock thecuttraversing speed infrom
once in one direction thistheexperiment
outside to thewas
inside8.4 mm/s
of the consideri
granite
thrust due
specimen, to high-pressure
as shown water
in Figure 6. The jettingflow.
system The cutting
could move atpaths
speedsinofeach case
1.2–16 were kep
mm/s,
and the traversing speed in this experiment was 8.4 mm/s considering
70 mm apart to prevent them from influencing or overlapping with each other. back thrust due to Th
high-pressure water flow. The cutting paths in each case were kept at
off distance (SOD) is the distance between the end of the focus and the specimen. least 70 mm apart
to prevent them from influencing or overlapping with each other. The standoff distance
variable
(SOD) that
is the has the
distance greatest
between influence
the end on and
of the focus the the
cutting width
specimen. It isand dispersion
the variable that of the
has the greatest influence on the cutting width and dispersion of the abrasive particles; its eff
particles; in this experiment, SOD was set very close to 10 mm to minimize
cutting
in depth was
this experiment, SOD measured
was set veryby close
calibrated
to 10 mm calipers at five
to minimize its points
effect. Thefrom the start to
cutting
depth was measured by calibrated calipers at five points from the
along the cutting path, and three measured values excluding the maximum and m start to the end along
the cutting path, and three measured values excluding the maximum and minimum ones
ones were averaged.
were averaged.

Abrasive waterjet
Focus

Focus diameter ( )

Cutting depth ( )

Target rock
Figure 6. Schematic drawing of abrasive waterjet rock cutting.
Figure 6. Schematic drawing of abrasive waterjet rock cutting.
4. Experimental Results and Analysis
4. Experimental
4.1. Results
Kinetic Energy and and Performance
Rock Cutting Analysis
4.1. Figure
Kinetic7 depicts
Energya and
granite specimen
Rock Cutting after the experiment, along with the focus geome-
Performance
try, the water flow rate, and the AFR. The cutting surface indicates the cutting path, and
Figure
the cutting side7 depicts
shows the a cutting
granitedepth
specimen after the
at the cutting experiment,
start point accordingalong with
to the testthe focu
etry, the water
conditions. Because flow
the rate,
SOD isand thethe
short, AFR. Thewidth
cutting cutting surface
is similar indicates
to that shown the cutting p
on the
cutting surface. Figure 8 presents the cutting depth according to the
the cutting side shows the cutting depth at the cutting start point according toAFR at each WFR for
each focus diameter, showing that the larger the focus diameter, the deeper the cutting
conditions. Because the SOD is short, the cutting width is similar to that shown
depth. The maximum cutting depth occurs at a large focus diameter, and the optimum AFR
(cutting surface. Figure 8 presents
maximum the cutting
depth,depth according to thediameter.
AFR at each W
.
m a,o ), which is the AFR at the cutting increases with the focus
eachthe
With focus
samediameter,
input energy showing
conditionsthat
(e.g.,the larger
water the focus
pressure, diameter,
water, and AFR), thethe deeper the
mixing
variables
depth. The affectmaximum
the cutting depth.
cutting depth occurs at a large focus diameter, and the o
AFR (𝑚 , ), which is the AFR at the maximum cutting depth, increases with th
 Appl.Sci.
Appl. Sci.2021,
2021,11,
11,xxFOR
FORPEER
PEERREVIEW
REVIEW 99 ofof 15
15

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1543 diameter.With

Withthe
thesame
sameinput
inputenergy
energyconditions
conditions(e.g.,
(e.g.,water
waterpressure,
pressure,water,
water,and 9 of 15
andAFR),
AFR),
diameter.
themixing
the mixingvariables
variablesaffect
affectthe
thecutting
cuttingdepth.
depth.

Figure7.
Figure
Figure 7.Cutting
7. Cuttingresults
Cutting resultswith
results withdifferent
with differentfocus
different focusdiameters
focus diametersand
diameters andWFRs
and WFRson
WFRs onthe
on thegranite
the granitespecimens.
granite specimens.
specimens.

Figure8.
Figure
Figure 8.8.Rock
Rockcutting
Rock cuttingdepth
cutting depthas
depth asaaafunction
as functionof
function offocus
of focusdiameter
focus diameterat
diameter atWFRs
at WFRsof
WFRs of(a)
of (a)10.67,
(a) 10.67,(b)
10.67, (b)29.5,
(b) 29.5,and
29.5, and(c)
and (c)50.00
(c) 50.00mL/s.
50.00 mL/s.
mL/s.

Figure 99 shows
Figure shows
shows the the DBP
the DBP
DBP as as
as aaa function
function
function ofof the
of the AFR
the AFR
AFR by by
by focus
focus diameter.
focus diameter. This
diameter. This figure
This figure
figure
demonstrates that the larger the
demonstrates that the larger the focus diameter,focus diameter,
diameter,the the farther
thefarther
fartherthe the abrasives
theabrasives
abrasivesare are from
arefrom each
fromeacheach
other,
other, resulting
resulting in
in a
a higher
higher DBP.
DBP. An
An increase
increase in
in the
the AFR
AFR increases
increases the
the number
number of
of abrasive
abrasive
other, resulting in a higher DBP. An increase in the AFR increases the number of abrasive
particles
particlesin ininthe
thefocus
focusand anddecreases
decreases thethe
DBPDBP(Figure
(Figure9a).9a).
As derived
Asderived
derivedfromfromEquations (4) and
Equations (4)
particles the focus and decreases the DBP (Figure 9a). As from Equations (4)
(7),
and the
(7), WFR
the does not
WFR doessignificantly
not affect the
significantly DBP.
affect the This
DBP.finding
This is explained
finding is by the fact
explained by that
the
and (7), the WFR does not significantly affect the DBP. This finding is explained by the
all
factthe
thatabrasive
allthe particles
abrasiveare
theabrasive simultaneously
particles acceleratedaccelerated
aresimultaneously
simultaneously and move at themove
and sameat velocity.
thesame
same A
fact that all particles are accelerated and move at the
higher WFR
velocity.AAhigher results
higherWFR in a faster
WFRresults
resultsininitial
inaafasterwater velocity
fasterinitial
initialwater (Equation
watervelocity (3)),
velocity(Equation so the
(Equation(3)), abrasive–water
(3)),so
sothe
theabra-
abra-
velocity.
mixture
sive–water moves faster,
mixture but tfaster,
moves f decreases.
but 𝑡 Whether
decreases. theWhether
abrasivethe particles
abrasive move quickly
particles moveor
sive–water mixture moves faster, but 𝑡 decreases. Whether the abrasive particles move
slowly,
quicklyor the DBP
orslowly, remains
slowly,the theDBP the
DBPremainssame.
remainsthe Because
thesame. the
same.BecauseWFR
Becausethe affects
theWFR the
WFRaffects terminal
affectsthe velocity
theterminal of
terminalveloc- the
veloc-
quickly
abrasive,
ity of the aabrasive,
larger WFR a has aWFR
larger larger
has kinetic
a energy
larger kinetic forenergy
cutting,foreven with even
cutting, the same
with AFR.
the The
same
ity of the abrasive, a larger WFR has a larger kinetic energy for cutting, even with the same
complex effect of the mixing variables can be expressed as the energy required to cut one
unit depth of rock (ε) from the experimental results, as shown in Figure 8.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 15
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 15

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1543
AFR. The complex effect of the mixing variables can be expressed as the energy required
10 of 15
AFR. The complex effect of the mixing variables can be expressed as the energy required
to cut one unit depth of rock (𝜀) from the experimental results, as shown in Figure 8.
to cut one unit depth of rock (𝜀) from the experimental results, as shown in Figure 8.

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 9. DBP as functions of the (a) focus diameter and (b) WFR.
Figure
Figure 9. 9.
DBPDBP
as as functions
functions of of
thethe
(a)(a) focus
focus diameter
diameter andand
(b)(b) WFR.
WFR.

Figure
Figure 10 presents
10 presents the
thekinetic
kineticenergy
energyperperunit
unitsecond
second (E(𝐸 ) calculated using Equation
Figure 10 presents the kinetic energy per unit second a ) (𝐸
calculated using
) calculated Equation
using (9)
Equation
(9)
underunder
the the experimental
experimental conditions
conditions of of
thisthis study.
study. A A
highhigh
water water
flow flow
rate rate corresponds
corresponds to a
(9) under the experimental conditions of this study. A high water flow rate corresponds
to a large
large acceleration
acceleration momentum,
momentum, yielding
yielding a a high
high kinetic
kinetic energyenergy
becausebecause
of theofhigh
the high ter-
terminal
to a large acceleration momentum, yielding a high kinetic energy because of the high ter-
minal
velocity.velocity. Increasing
Increasing the AFRthe AFR an
causes causes an increase
increase in the total mass
abrasive
but mass but de-
minal velocity. Increasing the AFR causes aninincrease
the total abrasive
in the total abrasive decreases
mass but the
de-
creases
terminal the terminal velocity (Equation (2)). As such, the kinetic energy for rock
thecutting
creasesvelocity (Equation
the terminal (2)). (Equation
velocity As such, the kinetic
(2)). energy
As such, thefor rock cutting
kinetic energy and
for rock effects
cutting
and
ofand theabrasive
the effects of the abrasive mixing variables
fromresulting from thewere experiment were eval-a
the effectsmixing variables
of the abrasive resulting
mixing variables the experiment
resulting evaluated
from the experiment using
were eval-
uated
functionusing a function
of theaDBP. of the DBP.
uated using function of the DBP.

Figure 10.
Figure Abrasive waterjet
10. Abrasive waterjet kinetic
kinetic energy
energy per
per second
second as
as functions
functions of
of the
the AFR
AFR and
and the
the WFR.
WFR.
Figure 10. Abrasive waterjet kinetic energy per second as functions of the AFR and the WFR.
4.2. DBP and Cutting Characteristics
4.2. DBP and Cutting Characteristics
4.2.One
DBPofand
theCutting
objectives Characteristics
of this study was to identify a comprehensive relationship among
One affecting
variables of the objectives
the mixing of and
this acceleration,
study was to identify as theawater
comprehensive relationship
One of the objectives of this study wassuch to identify flow rate, the
a comprehensive AFR, and
relationship
among
the focus variables
diameter.affecting
The the
energy mixing
required and
to acceleration,
cut a unit depthsuch as the
according water
to the flow
DBP rate,
is shownthe
among variables affecting the mixing and acceleration, such as the water flow rate, the
AFR,
inAFR, and 11.
Figure theThese
focus results
diameter. The energy
indicate required to cut and
a unit depthperformance.
according to the
and the focus diameter. Theboth mixing
energy efficiency
required cutting
to cut a unit depth according The to the
DBP is shown in Figure 11. These results indicate both mixing efficiency and cutting
0.63 per-
DBPDBP and energyinrequired
is shown Figure 11.to cut
Thesea unit depth
results are correlated
indicate both mixing with α = 11.595
efficiency and±cutting and
per-
formance.
= −0.738The ±TheDBP and energy (10).required to cut ofa unit depth areiscorrelated with 𝛼=
β formance. 0.02 in Equation
DBP and energy The coefficient
required to cut adetermination
unit depth are0.9606, which
correlated shows
with 𝛼=
11.595
a high 0.63 and
goodness of 𝛽
fit=and
−0.738
can be 0.02 in Equation
expressed as (10). The coefficient of determination
follows:
11.595 0.63 and 𝛽 = −0.738 0.02 in Equation (10). The coefficient of determination
is 0.9606, which shows a high goodness of fit and can be expressed as follows:
is 0.9606, which shows a high goodness of fit and can be expressed as follows:
Ea /D = ε = 11.595·DBP−0.738 . (11)
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 15

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1543 11 of 15

.
𝐸 ⁄𝐷 = 𝜀 = 11.595 ∙ DBP . (11)

40

[J/mm]
35 y = 11.595x-0.738
R² = 0.9606

Energy required to cut unit depth,

30

25
= 50.00 mL/s
20
= 10.67 mL/s
15

10
= 29.50 mL/s
5

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
DBP [mm]
Figure11.
Figure Energyrequired
11. Energy required to
to cut
cut aa unit
unit depth
depth versus
versus DBP.
DBP.
.
Thecolored
The coloredmark
markin inFigure
Figure11 11indicates
indicatesthe theoptimum
optimumAFR AFR(𝑚 (m a,o))based
basedon onthe
theWFR.
WFR.
,
In general, the larger the WFR, the larger the amount of energy
In general, the larger the WFR, the larger the amount of energy required to cut 1 mm,required to cut 1 mm,
which means that the cutting efficiency is higher at a lower WFR. Based
which means that the cutting efficiency is higher at a lower WFR. Based on this result, the on this result, the
DBP corresponding to the optimum AFR at a high WFR was
DBP corresponding to the optimum AFR at a high WFR was estimated to be less than estimated to be less than
approximately 0.6
approximately 0.6 mm.
mm. Using
Using the
therelationship
relationship between
between thethe energy
energy required
required toto cut
cut one
one unit
unit
depth and the DBP, the optimum AFR can be determined according
depth and the DBP, the optimum AFR can be determined according to the WFR and the to the WFR and the
waterjet system.
waterjet system.
Bysubstituting
By substituting the
the energy
energy required
required to to cut
cut one
one unit
unit depth
depth from
from Equation
Equation (10)
(10) and
and the
the
DBP from Equation (7) into Equation (11), the cut depth can be expressed as follows:
DBP from Equation (7) into Equation (11), the cut depth can be expressed as follows:
. r !. 0.738
m a v2t 3 3 2 .
D= 𝐷= 𝑑d𝑙 l𝑚m p /
𝑚m𝑡a t f−−𝑑d p .. (12)
(12)
∙ .
2·11.595 2 f f
This approach represents the characteristics of mixing variables such as the focus ge-
This approach represents the characteristics of mixing variables such as the focus
ometry, the abrasive particle diameter, the mass of a single abrasive particle, the AFR, and
geometry, the abrasive particle diameter, the mass of a single abrasive particle, the AFR,
the water flow rate based on the terminal velocity. The cutting depth can be estimated
and the water flow rate based on the terminal velocity. The cutting depth can be estimated
under a wide range of waterjet system conditions by measuring 𝛼 and 𝛽 from three or
under a wide range of waterjet system conditions by measuring α and β from three or more
more
pointspoints representing
representing the relationship
the relationship betweenbetween
the energy therequired
energy required
to cut onetounitcutdepth
one unit
and
depth
the DBP.and the DBP.
Figure
Figure 12 12presents
presents thethe results
results of
of aaparametric
parametricstudy,
study, depicting
depicting the
the cutting
cutting depth
depth with
with
aa given water flow rate according to the focus diameter at an AFR of
given water flow rate according to the focus diameter at an AFR of 10 g/s (according 10 g/s (according to
Equation
to Equation (12)). The The
(12)). mixing variables
mixing werewere
variables evaluated over aover
evaluated widea range, and it was
wide range, and found
it was
that
found that the larger the focus diameter, the greater the cut depth. The effect of thediam-
the larger the focus diameter, the greater the cut depth. The effect of the focus focus
eter is larger
diameter at higher
is larger water flow
at higher waterrates.
flowItrates.
can also be demonstrated
It can that a high
also be demonstrated WFR
that re-
a high
sults in a large reduction in efficiency because of the focus diameter. Increasing
WFR results in a large reduction in efficiency because of the focus diameter. Increasing the water
flow rate from
the water flow 50 mL/s
rate fromto5090mL/s
mL/sto (i.e., by 80%)
90 mL/s increases
(i.e., by 80%)the cuttingthe
increases depth by 20%.
cutting depth Alt-
by
hough the maximum
20%. Although cutting depth
the maximum occurs
cutting at 90
depth mL/s,at50
occurs 90mL/s
mL/s,of 50
flow rate of
mL/s is flow
considered
rate is
to be economical.
considered Thus, it is possible
to be economical. Thus, ittoisdesign an to
possible economical
design anwater flow rate
economical using
water Equa-
flow rate
tion (12).
using Equation (12).
Figure 13 illustrates the results of a parametric study, showing the effect of the focus
diameter and the AFR on the cutting depth at a WFR of 50 mL/s. For a focus diameter
less than 0.9 mm, the optimum AFR is close to 5 g/s (dashed dotted line), but for a
larger diameter focus, the optimum AFR is close to 10 g/s (dashed line). This approach
demonstrates the change in the optimum AFR according to the focus diameter. An increase
in AFR increases the impact frequency (up arrow) while reducing the terminal velocity
and cutting energy (down arrow), as indicated by Equation (3). In addition, a high AFR
yields numerous collisions between abrasive particles, reducing the cutting efficiency. This
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1543 12 of 15

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 15

parametric study demonstrates that the DBP in the focus enables optimal design of the
focus diameter, the AFR, and the WFR.

Figure 12. Effect of the focus diameter on the cutting depth owing to WFR.

Figure 13 illustrates the results of a parametric study, showing the effect of the focus
diameter and the AFR on the cutting depth at a WFR of 50 mL/s. For a focus diameter less
than 0.9 mm, the optimum AFR is close to 5 g/s (dashed dotted line), but for a larger di-
ameter focus, the optimum AFR is close to 10 g/s (dashed line). This approach demon-
strates the change in the optimum AFR according to the focus diameter. An increase in
AFR increases the impact frequency (up arrow) while reducing the terminal velocity and
cutting energy (down arrow), as indicated by Equation (3). In addition, a high AFR yields
numerous collisions between abrasive particles, reducing the cutting efficiency. This par-
ametric study demonstrates that the DBP in the focus enables optimal design of the focus
Figure 12. Effect
Figure 12.
diameter, of
of the
the AFR,
Effect focus
and
the thediameter
focus WFR. on
diameter on the
the cutting
cutting depth
depth owing
owing to
to WFR.
WFR.

Figure 13 illustrates the results of a parametric study, showing the effect of the focus
diameter and the AFR on the cutting depth at a WFR of 50 mL/s. For a focus diameter less
than 0.9 mm, the optimum AFR is close to 5 g/s (dashed dotted line), but for a larger di-
ameter focus, the optimum AFR is close to 10 g/s (dashed line). This approach demon-
strates the change in the optimum AFR according to the focus diameter. An increase in
AFR increases the impact frequency (up arrow) while reducing the terminal velocity and
cutting energy (down arrow), as indicated by Equation (3). In addition, a high AFR yields
numerous collisions between abrasive particles, reducing the cutting efficiency. This par-
ametric study demonstrates that the DBP in the focus enables optimal design of the focus
diameter, the AFR, and the WFR.

Figure 13.
Figure Effects of
13. Effects of the
the focus
focus diameter
diameter on
on the
the cutting
cutting depth
depth owing
owing to
to the
the AFR.
AFR.

5. Conclusions
5. Conclusions
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the mixing characteristics of abrasive
The rock
waterjet purpose of this
cutting. Thestudy was to evaluate
dependence of the rockthecutting
mixingperformance
characteristics
on of
theabrasive
mixing
waterjet
variables, such as the abrasive flow rate, the water flow rate, and the focus geometry, var-
rock cutting. The dependence of the rock cutting performance on the mixing was
iables, such as the
experimentally abrasive
tested. flow rate,
To evaluate the the water
mixing flow rate,
variables and the focus geometry,
comprehensively, was
the chances of
abrasive–abrasive and abrasive–focus inner surface collisions were defined in terms of the
DBP in the focus. In addition, as the cutting energy and experimental results were expressed
as functions of the DBP, the characteristics of the mixing variables were assessed. The results
of this study can be used for geotechnical application such as improved abrasive waterjet
rock excavation. The following are the major findings and contributions of this study:
Figure 13. Effects of the focus diameter on the cutting depth owing to the AFR.
• The abrasive mixing characteristics were derived based on the mixing variables, such
as the WFR, the AFR, and the focus geometry. To express the complex effects of the
5. Conclusions
variables, a mixing efficiency model was developed considering the chance of collision
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the mixing characteristics of abrasive
waterjet rock cutting. The dependence of the rock cutting performance on the mixing var-
iables, such as the abrasive flow rate, the water flow rate, and the focus geometry, was
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1543 13 of 15

by defining the concept of the DBP, which represents the abrasive density in the focus.
This model comprehensively considers the WFR, the AFR, the focus diameter and
length, and the abrasive mass and diameter.
• As a result of the effects of the mixing variables, the cutting depth was experimentally
obtained. It was found that using a large focus diameter or water flow rate, a higher
mixing efficiency yields a greater cutting depth. The AFR affects the terminal velocity
and mixing efficiency, so excessive input reduces the cutting depth. The higher the
mixing efficiency, the higher the optimum AFR.
• By expressing the relationships between the experimental results and input energy
as functions of the DBP, the effects of the mixing efficiency on abrasive waterjet rock
cutting could be calculated. The smaller the DBP, the higher the energy required to
cut a unit depth of the rock. In other words, a high energy input was required owing
to the low mixing efficiency.
• The developed model demonstrated that, with a high water flow rate, the cutting
efficiency was low compared to the energy input. In addition, high water flow rates
indicated the optimum AFR at small DBPs. At water flow rates of over 50 mL/s, the
optimum AFR was estimated to occur with a DBP of less than 0.6 mm.
• The cutting depth model was proposed based on the empirical relationship between
the experimental cutting results and the mixing variables. The mixing efficiency was
considered by indicating the chance of collision in terms of the DBP. The proposed
model also demonstrates the effects of the mixing variables. In particular, the changes
in the optimum AFR according to changes in the focus diameter are revealed. By
using this model, it is possible to estimate the optimum AFR and cutting performance
with minimal experimentation.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, G.-C.C. and Y.C.; formal analysis, Y.C. and T.-M.O.;
investigation, Y.C. and H.-J.H.; writing–original draft preparation, Y.C. and H.-J.H.; writing—review
and editing, Y.C. and T.-M.O.; supervision, G.-C.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: This work was supported by a National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF)
grant funded by the Korean government (MSIT) (No. 2017R1A5A1014883) and the Basic Research
Project of the Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources (KIGAM, GP 2020-010) funded by
the Ministry of Science and ICT, Korea.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

D Cutting depth (mm)

df Focus diameter (mm)
dp Abrasive particle diameter (mm)
Ea Kinetic energy per unit second (J/s)
g Gravitational acceleration
K Resistance constant
lf Focus length (mm)
.
ma Abrasive flow rate (AFR) (g/s)
.
m a,o Optimum abrasive flow rate (g/s)
mp Mass of single particle (g)
.
mw Water flow rate (WFR) (mL/s)
Np, f Total number of particles in focus
pw Pressure of pump generated water (MPa)
to Operating time (i.e., time for which the abrasive is injected) (s)
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1543 14 of 15

tf Time abrasive mixing in focus (s)

Vf ocus Volume inside focus (mm3 )
Vs Volume occupied by a single particle (mm3 )
va Velocity of abrasive particle (m/s)
vt Terminal velocity (m/s)
vw Velocity of water (m/s)
vw,o Velocity of initial water in the orifice section (m/s)
α Constant in the relationship between cutting depth and energy (mm)
β Exponent in the relationship between cutting depth and energy
γ Unit weight of water (kg/mm3 )
ε Energy required to cut unit depth (J/mm)
ηt Momentum transfer parameter
ε Energy required to cut one unit depth of rock (J/mm)
AFR Abrasive flow rate (g/s)
DBP Distance between particles (mm)
SOD Standoff distance (mm)
WFR Water flow rate (mL/s)

References
1. Hlaváčová, I.M.; Sadílek, M.; Váňová, P.; Szumilo, Š.; Tyč, M. Influence of Steel Structure on Machinability by Abrasive Water Jet.
Materials 2020, 13, 4424. [CrossRef]
2. Karmiris-Obratański, P.; Karkalos, N.E.; Kudelski, R.; Papazoglou, E.L.; Markopoulos, A.P. On the Effect of Multiple Passes on
Kerf Characteristics and Efficiency of Abrasive Waterjet Cutting. Metals 2021, 11, 74. [CrossRef]
3. Korzeniowski, W.; Poborska-Młynarska, K.; Skrzypkowski, K.; Zagórski, K.; Chromik, M. Cutting Niches in Rock Salt by Means
of a High-Pressure Water Jet in Order to Accelerate the Leaching of Storage Caverns for Hydrogen or Hydrocarbons. Energies
2020, 13, 1911. [CrossRef]
4. Aydin, G.; Karakurt, I.; Aydiner, K. Prediction of the cut depth of granitic rocks machined by abrasive waterjet (AWJ). Rock Mech.
Rock Eng. 2013, 46, 1223–1235. [CrossRef]
5. Cha, Y.; Oh, T.-M.; Ahn, T.-Z.; Cho, G.-C. The state of abrasive waterjet technologies for construction in Korea. In Proceedings of
the 6th International Young Geotechnical Engineer’s Conference (iYGEC6), Seoul, Korea, 6–17 September 2017; pp. 86–87.
6. Hashish, M. AWJ cutting with reduced abrasive consumption. In Proceedings of the American Water Jet Conference, Houston,
TX, USA, 19–21 September 2011.
7. Oh, T.-M.; Cho, G.-C. Characterization of Effective Parameters in Abrasive Waterjet Rock Cutting. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2013,
47, 745–756. [CrossRef]
8. Engin, I.C. A correlation for predicting the abrasive water jet cutting depth for natural stones. S. Afr. J. Sci. 2012, 108, 1–11. [CrossRef]
9. Dani, D.N.; Shah, H.; Prajapati, H.B. An experimental investigation of abrasive water jet machining on granite. Int. J. Innov. Res.
Sci Technol 2016, 3, 26–31.
10. Aydin, G. Recycling of abrasives in abrasive water jet cutting with different types of granite. Arab. J. Geosci. 2014,
7, 4425–4435. [CrossRef]
11. Guo, N.; Louis, H.; Meier, G.; Ohlsen, J. Recycling capacity of abrasives in abrasive water jet cutting. In Jet Cutting Technology;
Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1992; pp. 503–523. [CrossRef]
12. Brandt, C. Abrasive suspension jets at working pressures up to 200 MPa. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on
Jet Cutting Technology, Rouen, France, 25–27 October 1994; pp. 489–507.
13. Oweinah, H. Leistungssteigerung des Hochdruckwasserstrahlschneidens durch Zugabe von Zusatzstoffen; Hanser, C., Ed.; Carl Hanser
Verlag: Munich, Germany, 1990.
14. Momber, A.; Kovacevic, R. Energy dissipative processes in high speed water-solid particle erosion. Asme-Publ.-Htd 1995, 321,
555–564.
15. Cha, Y.; Oh, T.-M.; Cho, G.-C. Effects of Focus Geometry on the Hard Rock-Cutting Performance of an Abrasive Waterjet. Adv.
Civil. Eng. 2020, 2020. [CrossRef]
16. Andersson, D.; Ingvarsson, K. Design of Experiment and Evaluation of Abrasive Waterjet Cutting in Titanium Alloy Sheet; Department
of Materials and Manufacturing Technology, Chalmers University of Technology: Gothenburg, Sweden, 2015.
17. Hloch, S.; Gombar, M.; Valicek, J. Analysis of abrasive waterjet factors influencing the cast aluminium surface roughness. Int. J.
Precis. Technol. 2007, 1. [CrossRef]
18. Kechagias, J.; Petropoulos, G.; Vaxevanidis, N. Application of Taguchi design for quality characterization of abrasive water jet
machining of TRIP sheet steels. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2011, 62, 635–643. [CrossRef]
19. Momber, A.W.; Kovacevic, R. Principles of Abrasive Water Jet Machining; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin, Germany, 2012.
20. Hale, P. Multi-Modelling of Abrasive Waterjet Machining; McMaster University: Hamilton, ON, Canada, 2012.
21. Labus, T.; Neusen, K.; Alberts, D.; Gores, T. Factors influencing the particle size distribution in an abrasive waterjet. J. Eng. Ind.
1991, 113, 402–411. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1543 15 of 15

22. Hashish, M. Optimization factors in abrasive-waterjet machining. J. Eng. Ind. 1991, 113, 29–37. [CrossRef]
23. Momber, A.W. Energy transfer during the mixing of air and solid particles into a high-speed waterjet: An impact-force study.
Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 2001, 25, 31–41. [CrossRef]
24. Guo, N.; Louis, H.; Meier, G. Surface structure and kerf geometry in abrasive waterjet cutting: Formation and optimization. In
Proceedings of the 7th American Water Jet Conference, Seattle, DC, USA, 28–31 August 1993; pp. 1–25.
25. Jegaraj, J.J.R.; Babu, N.R. A soft computing approach for controlling the quality of cut with abrasive waterjet cutting system
experiencing orifice and focusing tube wear. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2007, 185, 217–227. [CrossRef]
26. Babu, M.K.; Chetty, O.K. Studies on recharging of abrasives in abrasive water jet machining. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2002,
19, 697–703. [CrossRef]
27. Feng, Y.; Jianming, W.; Feihong, L. Numerical simulation of single particle acceleration process by SPH coupled FEM for abrasive
waterjet cutting. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2011, 59, 193–200. [CrossRef]
28. Chalmers, E. Effect of parameter selection on abrasive waterjet performance. In Proceedings of the 6th American Water Jet
Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 24–27 August 1991; pp. 345–354.
29. Hashish, M. Pressure effects in abrasive-waterjet (AWJ) machining. J. Eng. Mater. Technol. 1989, 111, 221–228. [CrossRef]
30. Kovacevic, R.; Momber, A.; Mohen, R. Energy dissipation control in hydro-abrasive machining using quantitative acoustic
emission. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2002, 20, 397–406. [CrossRef]
31. Oh, T.-M.; Cho, G.-C. Rock cutting depth model based on kinetic energy of abrasive waterjet. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2016,
49, 1059–1072. [CrossRef]
32. Mott, R.L.; Noor, F.M.; Aziz, A.A. Applied Fluid Mechanics; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2006.
33. Henning, A.; Miles, P.; Stang, D. Efficient operation of abrasive waterjet cutting in industrial applications. In Proceedings of the
WJTA-IMCA Conference and Expo, Houston, TX, USA, 19–21 September 2011. Paper A.
34. Abdel-Rahman, A.A. A Closed-form Expression for an abrasive waterjet cutting model for ceramic materials. Int. J. Math. Models
Methods Appl. Sci. 2011, 5, 722–729.
35. Momber, A. A probabilistic model for the erosion of cement-based composites due to very high-speed hydro-abrasive flow. Wear
2016, 368, 39–44. [CrossRef]
36. Roth, P.; Looser, H.; Heiniger, K.; Bühler, S. Determination of abrasive particle velocity using laser-induced fluorescence and
particle tracking methods in abrasive water jets. In Proceedings of the 2005 WJTA Conference and Exposition, Houston, TX, USA,
21–23 August 2005; pp. 21–23.
37. Cui, L.; An, L.; Gong, W. Effects of process parameters on the comminution capability of high pressure water jet mill. Int. J.
Mineral. Process. 2006, 81, 113–121. [CrossRef]
38. ASTM. D6913-04: Standard Test Methods for Particle Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis; ASTM International
West Conshohocken: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2009.
39. ASTM. D422-63: Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils; ASTM International West Conshohocken: West Con-
shohocken, PA, USA, 2007.
40. ASTM. D7012–14: Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength and Elastic Moduli of Intact Rock Core Specimens under Varying States
of Stress and Temperatures; ASTM International West Conshohocken: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2014.
41. Brown, E.T. Rock Characterization Testing and Monitoring; Pergamon Press: Oxford, UK, 1981.