Jet properties and mixing chamber flow in a high-pressure abrasive slurry jet: part II—machining rates and CFD modeling
- 9 Downloads
Part I of this two-part paper presented mixing chamber conditions and jet characteristics in a high-pressure abrasive slurry jet micro-machining (HASJM) system. The present paper describes the modeling of the slurry entrainment process within the mixing chamber and mixing tube of the nozzle using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and shows how the results can be used to explain and predict machining performance. The slurry flow rate into the mixing chamber was found to have a large impact on the performance of the jet due to differences in the momentum of the high-velocity water and low-velocity slurry. The erosive efficacy of the jet was assessed by machining channels and blind holes in aluminum 6061-T6. Differences in the centerline erosion rates of holes and channels for a given jet showed clear evidence of incubation and stagnation zone effects. The CFD models simulated various slurry flow rates entering the mixing chamber as a result of the low pressure created by the central high-velocity jet of water. They predicted correctly an experimentally observed flooding condition in which slurry completely filled the mixing chamber and mixing tube. The models could also identify the transient conditions leading to the onset of this flooding as the chamber first began to fill, which could not be identified experimentally. Flooding was found to significantly reduce the jet velocity, thus diminishing its erosive efficacy. The models also identified the operating conditions within the mixing chamber that produced boiling due to the low internal pressure generated by the central high-velocity jet of water. This boiling condition was found in part I to result in a wider jet exiting the mixing tube.
KeywordsAbrasive slurry jet Slurry entrainment Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) Micro-machining Aluminum 6061-T6 Erosion
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
The authors acknowledge the financial support from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and the Canada Research Chairs Program. CFD computations were performed on the general purpose cluster (GPC) supercomputer at the SciNet HPC Consortium. SciNet is funded by the Canada Foundation for Innovation under the auspices of Compute Canada, the Government of Ontario, Ontario Research Fund—Research Excellence, and the University of Toronto.
- 1.Teti M, Papini M, Spelt JK, (submitted). Jet properties and mixing-chamber flow in a high-pressure abrasive slurry jet: part I—measurement of jet and chamber conditions. Int J Adv Manuf TechnolGoogle Scholar
- 2.Nguyen T, Pang K, Wang J (2009) A preliminary study of the erosion process in micro-machining of glasses with a low pressure slurry jet. Key Eng Mater 389:375–380Google Scholar
- 5.Hashish M (1993) Performance of high-pressure abrasive suspension jet system. Am Soc Mech Eng 67:199–207Google Scholar
- 6.Liu HT (1998). Near-net shaping of optical surfaces with abrasive suspension jets. 14th Int. conference on jetting technology, Brugge, 285–294Google Scholar
- 7.Haghbin N, Ahmadzadeh F, Spelt JK, Papini M (2016) High pressure abrasive slurry jet micro-machining using slurry entrainment. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 84(5–8):1031–1043Google Scholar
- 10.Narayanan C, Caviezel D, Lakehal D (2016). Optimization of abrasive waterjet nozzle design for precision and reduced wear using compressible multiphase CFD modelling. Proc. 23rd int. conference on water jetting, Seattle, USAGoogle Scholar
- 12.Ahmed DH, Siores E, Naser J, Chen FL (2001). Numerical simulation of abrasive water jet for different taper inlet angles, 14th Australasian fluid mech. conference, 645–648Google Scholar
- 16.ANSYS fluent 15.0 theory guide. ANSYS, Inc., (2015, Canonsburg, PA, USAGoogle Scholar
- 20.White F (2011). Fluid mechanics (seventh edition). McGraw HillGoogle Scholar
- 25.Nouraei H, Kowsari K, Papini M, Spelt JK (2015) Operating parameters to minimize feature size in abrasive slurry jet micro-machining. Precis Eng 2016(44):109–123Google Scholar