Advertisement

Comparison of ultrasonically enhanced pulsating water jet erosion efficiency on mechanical surface treatment on the surface of aluminum alloy and stainless steel

  • Dominika LehockaEmail author
  • Jiri Klich
  • Frantisek Botko
  • Vladimir Simkulet
  • Josef Foldyna
  • Lucie Krejci
  • Zdenek Storkan
  • Jan Kepic
  • Michal Hatala
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • 6 Downloads

Abstract

Presented article is focused on the comparison of erosion efficiency on the surface treatment of ultrasonically enhanced PWJ (pulsating water jet) on different metal materials surfaces. Surfaces of EN X5CrNi18-10 stainless steel and EN-AW 6060 aluminum alloy were evaluated. Pulsating water jet technological factors were set to the following values: pressure was 70 MPa, circular nozzle diameter was 1.19 mm, traverse speed of cutting head was 100 mm s−1 (which is 200 impact for millimeter) for stainless steel and 660 mm s−1 (which is 30 impact per millimeter) for aluminum alloy. The evaluation was made based on the surface topography evaluation, evaluation of microstructure, and microhardness in the transverse cut. The results of the stainless steel surface evaluation show slight erosion of material, with creating microscopic craters. Subsurface deformation was found to a depth of a maximum of 200 μm. Hardness measurement shows 11% higher value of hardness under the affected area compared with a measurement in the center of the sample. From the findings, subsurface deformation strengthening of stainless steel with minimal influence of material surface can be assumed. Surface deformation of aluminum alloy is characterized by the formation of more pronounced depressions and less pronounced protrusions. Depressions were created by a combination of compression and tearing off material parts. A decrease in hardness value of 18% compared with a measurement in the center of the sample. In places of the first indent just below the disintegrated area (up to 600 μm deep), it is possible to assume the material plastic deformation, but the value of aluminum alloy tensile strength Rm is not exceeded. The experimental results from an aluminum alloy evaluation do not confirm the subsurface mechanical strengthening of the material.

Keywords

Pulsating water jet Surface topography Surface treatment Microstructure Microhardness Aluminum alloy Stainless steel 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Funding information

This work was supported by the Slovak Research and Development Agency under Contract No. APVV-17-0490. This work was supported by the following projects: VEGA 1/0682/17, KEGA č. 036TUKE-4/2017, FV 10446, FV 30233, LO1406, and the long-term conceptual development of the research institution RVO 68145535. This publication is the result of the Project implementation: University Science Park TECHNICOM for innovative applications with the support of knowledge technologies—Phase II, ITMS2014+, 313011D232, supported by the European Regional Development Fund.

References

  1. 1.
    Hloch S, Hlavacek J, Vasilko K et al (2017) Abrasive waterjet (AWJ) titanium tangential turning evaluation. Metalurgija. 53:537–540Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carach J, Lehocka D, Legutko S et al (2018) Surface roughness of graphite and aluminium alloy after hydro-abrasive machining. In: Advances in manufacturing. Lecture notes in mechanical engineering. Springer, pp 805–813.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68619-6_78
  3. 3.
    Sitek L, Foldyna J, Soucek K (2005) Shaping of rock specimens for testing of uniaxial tensile strength by high speed abrasive water jet: first experience. In: Eurock 2005: impact of human activity on the geological environment. A A Balkema Publisher, Leiden, pp 545–549Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Perec A (2019) Investigation of limestone cutting efficiency by the abrasive water suspension jet. In: Lecture notes in mechanical engineering. Springer, pp 124–134.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99353-9_14
  5. 5.
    Yue Z, Huang C, Zhu H, Wang J, Yao P, Liu ZW (2017) Optimization of machining parameters in the abrasive waterjet turning of alumina ceramic based on the response surface methodology. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 71:2107–2114.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-014-5624-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bodnarova L, Valek J, Sitek L, Foldyna J (2013) Effect of high temperatures on cement composite materials in concrete structures. Acta Geodyn Geomater 10:173–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hutyrova Z, Scucka J, Hloch S, Hlavacek P, Zelenak M (2016) Turning of wood plastic composites by water jet and abrasive water jet. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 84:1615–1623.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-7831-6 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Popan IA, Contiu G, Campbell I (2017) Investigation on standoff distance influence on kerf characteristics in abrasive water jet cutting of composite materials. MATEC Web of Conference. 137, article number 01009.  https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201713701009
  9. 9.
    Hou R, Wang T, Lv Z, Liu Y (2018) Experimental study of the ultrasonic vibration-assisted abrasive waterjet micromachining the quartz glass. Adv Mater Sci Eng 2018:Article number 8904234.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/8904234 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Xu J, Summers DA, Macneil W, Schmidt M (1996) The use of waterjets in the pre-profiling of underground excavations. In: 13th international conference on jetting technology, Book Series: BHR Group Conference Series Publication. Mechanical Engineering Publ., Sardinia, pp 521–531Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pagac M, Molotova S, Sadilek M et al (2016) Influence of effective milling strategies on the residual stress. METAL 2016: 25th Anniversary International Conference on Metallurgy and Materials. Tanger Ltd, Ostrava, pp. 819–824Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Duplak J, Hatala M, Duplakova D, Steranka J (2018) Comprehensive analysis and study of the machinability of a high strength aluminum alloy (EN AW-AlZn5.5MgCu) in the high-feed milling. Adv Prod Eng Manag 13:455–465.  https://doi.org/10.14743/apem2018.4.303 Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Teliskova M, Torok J, Duplakova D et al (2018) Non-destructive diagnostics of hard-to-reach places by spatial digitization. Tem J Technol Educ Manag Inform 7:612–616.  https://doi.org/10.18421/TEM73-18 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    He Y, Yoo KB, Ma H, Shin K (2018) Study of the austenitic stainless steel with gradient structured surface fabricated via shot peening. Mater Lett 215:187–190.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2017.12.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jayalakshmi M, Bhat BR, Bhat KU (2017) Effect of shot peening coverage on surface nanostructuring of 316L stainless steel and its influence on low temperature plasma-nitriding. Mater Performance Characterization 6:561–570.  https://doi.org/10.1520/MPC20160079 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yella P, Venkateswarlu P, Buddu RK, Vidyasagar DV, Sankara Rao KB, Kiran PP, Rajulapati KV (2018) Laser shock peening studies on SS316LN plate with various sacrificial layers. Appl Surf Sci 435:271–280.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2017.11.088 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kalainathan S, Sathyajith S, Swaroop S (2012) Effect of laser shot peening without coating on the surface properties and corrosion behavior of 316L steel. Opt Lasers Eng 50:1740–1745.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optlaseng.2012.07.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Todaka Y, Umemoto M, Tsuchiya K (2004) Comparison of nanocrystalline surface layer in steels formed by air blast and ultrasonic shot peening. Mater Trans 45:376–379.  https://doi.org/10.2320/matertrans.45.376 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sun QQ, Han QY, Xu R, Zhao K, Li J (2018) Localized corrosion behaviour of AA7150 after ultrasonic shot peening: corrosion depth vs. impact energy. Corros Sci 130:218–230.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2017.11.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Muruganandhan R, Mugilvalavan M, Thirumavalavan K, Yuvaraj N (2018) Investigation of water jet peening process parameters on AL6061-T6. Surf Eng 34:330–340.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02670844.2017.1394564 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jiang WC, Luo Y, Wang H, Wang BY (2015) Effect of impact pressure on reducing the weld residual stress by water jet peening in repair weld to 304 stainless steel clad plate. J Pressure Vessel Technol Trans ASME 137:031401.  https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4029655 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Azhari A, Sulaiman S, Rao RKP (2016) A review on the application of peening processes for surface treatment. In: 2nd International Manufacturing Engineering Conference and 3rd Asia-Pacific Concerence on Manufacturing Systems (IMEC-APCOMS 2015), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (2015). Book Series: IOP Conference Series-Materials Science and Engineering, IOP Publishing Ltd, 114, article number: 012002.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/114/1/012002
  23. 23.
    Bai FS, Saalbach KA, Long YY, Twiefel J, Wallaschek J (2018) Capability evaluation of ultrasonic cavitation peening at different standoff distances. Ultrasonics. 84:38–44.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultras.2017.10.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Macron A, Melkote SN, Castle J et al (2016) Effect of jet velocity in co-flow water cavitation jet peening. Wear. 360:38–50.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2016.03.027 Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bai FS, Saalbach KA, Wang L, Wang X, Twiefel J (2018) Impact of time on ultrasonic cavitation peening via detection of surface plastic deformation. Ultrasonics. 84:350–355.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultras.2017.12.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Peng GY, Oguma Y, Shimizu S (2016) Visualization observation of cavitation cloud shedding in a submerged water jet. In: 3rd Symposium on Fluid-Structure-Sound Interactions and Control (FSSIC), Perth, Australia (2015). FLUID-STRUCTURE-SOUND INTERACTIONS AND CONTROL, Book series: Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 229–234.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-48868-3_37 Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhang YN, Qian ZD, Wu DZ, Wang G, Wu Y, Li S, Peng G (2017) Fundamentals of cavitation and bubble dynamics with engineering applications. Adv Mech Eng 9:168781401769832.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1687814017698321 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Peng GY, Oguma Y, Shimizu S (2016) Numerical analysis of cavitation cloud shedding in a submerged water jet. In: 2nd Conference of Global Chinese Scholars on Hydrodynamics (CCSH 2016). CHINA OCEAN PRESS, Wuxi, pp 263–269Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Raudensky M, Horak A, Horsky J et al (2007) Hydraulic descaling improvement, findings of jet structure on water hammer effect. Rev Metall Cahiers d Inf Tech 104:84–90.  https://doi.org/10.1051/metal:2007133 Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lehocka D, Klich J, Botko F, Foldyna J et al (2018) Pulsating water jet erosion effect on a brass flat solid surface. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 97:1099–1112.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-1882-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ríha Z, Foldyna J (2012) Ultrasonic pulsations of pressure in a water jet cutting tool. Tech Gazette 19:487–449Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Foldyna J, Klich, Hlavacek P et al (2012) Erosion of metals by pulsating water jet. Tech Gazette 19:381–386Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Thomas GP, Brunton JH (1970) Drop impingement erosion of metals. Proc R Soc Lond A Math Phys Sci 314:549–565.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1970.0022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Krolczyk GM, Maruda RW, Krolczyk JB (2018) Parametric and nonparametric description of the surface topography in the dry and MQCL cutting conditions. Measurement 121:225–239.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2018.02.052 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Krolczyk GM, Krolczyk JB, Maruda RW, Legutko S, Tomaszewski M (2016) Metrological changes in surface morphology of high-strength steels in manufacturing processes. Measurement 88:176–185.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2016.03.055 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hutyrova Z, Zajac J, Michalik P et al (2015) Study of surface roughness of machined polymer composite material. Int J Polym Sci Article no. 303517.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/303517
  37. 37.
    Kirols HS, Kevorkov D, Uihlein A, Medraj M (2015) The effect of initial surface roughness on water droplet erosion behaviour. Wear. 342:198–209.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2015.08.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Cep R, Janasek A, Petru J et al (2014) Surface roughness after machining and influence of feed rate on process. Precision Machining VII. 581:341  https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.581.341
  39. 39.
    Perec A, Pude F, Kufeld M, Wegener K (2017) Obtaining the selected surface roughness by means of mathematical model based parameter optimization in abrasive waterjet cutting. Stroj Vestn-J Mech E 63:606–613.  https://doi.org/10.5545/sv-jme.2017.4463 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lehocka D, Klich J, Foldyna J, Hloch S, Krolczyk JB, Carach J, Krolczyk GM (2016) Copper alloys disintegration using pulsating water jet. Measurement 82:375–383.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2016.01.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lehocká D, Klich J, Foldyna J, Hloch S., Hvizdoš P., Fides M., Botko F., Cárach J. (2016) Surface integrity evaluation of brass CW614N after impact of acoustically excited pulsating water jet. ICMEM 2016, International Conference on Manufacturing Engineering and materials, Book Series: Procedia Engineering, Elsevier Science BV. 149:236–244.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.06.662
  42. 42.
    Lehocka D, Klichova D, Foldyna J et al (2017) Comparison of the influence of acoustically enhanced pulsating water jet on selected surface integrity characteristics of CW004A copper and CW614N brass. Measurement 110:230–238.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2017.07.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kušnerová M, Foldyna J, Sitek L et al (2012) Innovative approach to advanced modulated waterjet technology. Tech Gazette 19:475–480Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sitek L, Foldyna J, Martinec P, Ščučka J, Bodnárová L, Hela R (2011) Use of pulsating water jet technology for removal of concrete in repair of concrete structures. Baltic J Road Bridge Eng 6:235–242.  https://doi.org/10.3846/bjrbe.2011.30 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Foldyna V, Foldyna J, Klichova D, Klich J, Hlavacek P, Bodnarova L, Jarolim T, Kutlakova KM (2017) Effects of continuous and pulsating water jet on CNT/concrete composite. Strojniski Vjesnik J Mech Eng 63:583–589.  https://doi.org/10.5545/sv-jme.2017.4357 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Foldyna J, Sitek L, Martinec P et al (2005) Rock cutting by pulsing water jets, Eurock 2005: impact of human activity on the geological environment. A A Balkema Publisher, Leiden, pp 129–134Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Dehkhoda S, Hood M (2013) An experimental study of surface and sub-surface damage in pulsed water-jet breakage of rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 63:138–147.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2013.08.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Liu Y, Wei JP, Ren T, Lu ZH (2015) Experimental study of flow field structure of interrupted pulsed water jet and breakage of hard rock. Int J Rocks Min Sci 78:253–261.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2015.06.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hnizdil M, Raudensky M (2010) Descaling by pulsating water jet, METAL 2010 - 19th International Conference on Metallurgy and Materials. Tanger LTD, Ostrava, pp 209–213Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Klich J, Klichova D, Hlavacek P (2017) Effects of pulsating water jet on aluminium alloy with variously modified surface. Tech Gazette 24:341–345.  https://doi.org/10.17559/TV-20140219100749 Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Srivastava M, Hloch S, Tripathi R, Kozak D, Chattopadhyaya S, Dixit AR, Foldyna J, Hvizdos P, Fides M, Adamcik P (2018) Ultrasonically generated pulsed water jet peening of austenitic stainless-steel surfaces. J Manuf Process 32:455–468.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2018.03.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Hloch S, Srivastava M, Krolczyk JB et al (2018) Strengthening effect after disintegration of stainless steel using pulsating water jet. In: Technical Gazette, vol 25, pp 1075–1079.  https://doi.org/10.17559/TV-20170327134630 Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Stoye H, Koehler H, Mauermann M, Majschak JP (2014) Investigations to increase cleaning efficiency with pulsed liquid jet. Chemie Ingenieur Technik 86:707–713.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cite.201300047 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Augustin W, Fuchs T, Foste H, Scholer M, Majschak JP, Scholl S (2010) Pulsed flow for enhanced cleaning in food processing. Food Bioprod Process 88:384–391.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbp.2010.08.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Lehocka D, Simkulet V, Legutko S (2017) Assessment of deformation characteristics on CW004A copper influenced by acoustically enhanced water jet. In: MANUFACTURING 2017. 5th international scientific-technical conference on advances in manufacturing. Springer, pp 717–724.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68619-6_69
  56. 56.
    Lehocká D, Botko F, Simkulet V et al (2018) Study of surface topography of CW004A copper after PWJ disintegration, MMS Conference, 2nd EAI International Conference on Management of Manufacturing Systems, ACM.  https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.22-11-2017.2274347

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dominika Lehocka
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Jiri Klich
    • 2
  • Frantisek Botko
    • 1
  • Vladimir Simkulet
    • 1
  • Josef Foldyna
    • 2
  • Lucie Krejci
    • 3
  • Zdenek Storkan
    • 3
  • Jan Kepic
    • 4
  • Michal Hatala
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Manufacturing Technologies with a seat in PresovThe Technical University of KosicePresovSlovak Republic
  2. 2.Institute of GeonicsThe Czech Academy of SciencesOstrava – PorubaCzech Republic
  3. 3.Faculty of Mechanical EngineeringThe Technical University of OstravaOstrava – PorubaCzech Republic
  4. 4.Institute of Materials ResearchSlovak Academy of SciencesKosiceSlovak Republic

Personalised recommendations