In order to gain a better understanding of how much the industry knows about waterjet technology, a survey was mailed out to various companies. A total of 215 surveys were mailed along with the cover letter and a self-addressed envelope for return. The construction companies were chosen out of the list provided by Associated General Contractors (AGC) in a random manner.
A total of 95 surveys were returned.
Approximately 42 percent of the companies are familiar with the waterjet.
Of the 42 percent who were familiar with its use, only about 17 percent of them actually employ this technology in their company.
Of the 17% who use the abrasive waterjet,
100% of them do employ another cutting technique.
88% percent use the pneumatic hammer,
63% use the diamond blade power saw,
19% employ other techniques such as torches, hydroblasting and grinders.
Of the 17% who employ the abrasive waterjet in their business,
56% use the waterjet for concrete cutting,
38% use the waterjet for steel cutting and
63% use the waterjet for cleaning and paint removal.
Of the 83% who do not use the abrasive waterjet,
76% use the pneumatic hammer,
83% use the diamond blade power saw,
9% use the mechanical brushes and
9% use other techniques such as verneer trenches and torches.
Conclusion and Limitations
It appeared after studying the advantages and disadvantages of the waterjet, that this is a tool that the construction industry should find very useful. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the case. Many of the regional companies do not seem to have any significant knowledge of the waterjet, thus remaining unwilling to employ this technology.
The responses that we have received have left us with the inability to comment on the cost effectiveness of the waterjet in the construction industry. The majority of companies that we contacted do not employ the waterjet in their companies, nor d o most of them have any knowledge of the abrasive waterjet. These companies seem to be conservative to new technology and unwilling to take risks. This may also be due to the fact that many companies are unwilling to invest in a new technology that is not widely used.
REFERENCES
[1] Behringer -Plosonka, Catherine A., "Waterjet Cutting - A Technology Afloat on a Sea of Potential", Manufacturing Engineering, Vol. 99, Nov. 1987, pp. 37-41.
[2] Haylock, Rob, "Waterjet Cutting", Conference: Automach Australia "85, July 2-5, 1985, Melbourne, Australia.
[3] Slattery, Thomas J., "Abrasive Waterjet Carves Out Metalworking Niche", Machine and Tool Blue Book, July 1991, pp. 31-34.
[4] Hitchox, Alan L., "Vote of Confidence for Abrasive Waterjet Cutting", Metal Progress, Vol. 130, July 1986, pp. 33-34.
[5] Flow International, 1995.
[6] Steinhauser, John, "Abrasive Waterjets: on the ‘Cutting Edge’ of Technology", Flow Systems, Inc.
[7] "Jetpac Intensifier Pump - Model 40DT", Flow Specs, FS-130, Sept. 1989.
[8] Ayers, Gary W., "Principles of Waterjet Cutting", Tappi Journal, Vol. 70, Sept 1993, pp. 91-94.
[9] Zaring, K., "Advanced Abrasive Waterjet Hardware and Cutting Performance", 5th American Waterjet Conference, Aug. 1989.
[10] Hashish, M., "Steel Cutting With Abrasive Waterjets", 6th International Symposium on Jet Cutting Technology, April 1982.
[11] Vijay, M.M., "A Critical Examination of the Use of Waterjets for Medical Applications", 5th American Waterjet Conference, Aug. 1989.
[12] Medeot, R., "History, Theory and Practice of Hydrodemolition", 5th American Waterjet Conference, Aug. 1989.
[13] Schmid, R.F., "High Pressure Hydro-Milling of Concrete Surfaces", 5th American Waterjet Conference, Aug. 1989.
[14] Peart, John W., "Lead-Pigmented Paints - Their Impact on Bridge Maintenance Strategies and Costs", Public Roads, Vol. 52 Sept. 1992, pp. 47-51.
[15] Katausakas, Ted, "DOT Coasts Rusting Bridges With Layers of Problems", R&D Magazine, May 1990, pp. 43-48.
[16] Baldry, Ian, "Surface Preparation", Civil Engineering (London, England), April 1987, pp. 47-48.
[17] Falcone, Linda M. Tonkay, Gregory L., "Economic Feasibility of a Tool to Remove Rivets From Railway Bridges", Proposal to The Canadian National Railway, April 1990.
A total of 95 surveys were returned.
Approximately 42 percent of the companies are familiar with the waterjet.
Of the 42 percent who were familiar with its use, only about 17 percent of them actually employ this technology in their company.
Of the 17% who use the abrasive waterjet,
100% of them do employ another cutting technique.
88% percent use the pneumatic hammer,
63% use the diamond blade power saw,
19% employ other techniques such as torches, hydroblasting and grinders.
Of the 17% who employ the abrasive waterjet in their business,
56% use the waterjet for concrete cutting,
38% use the waterjet for steel cutting and
63% use the waterjet for cleaning and paint removal.
Of the 83% who do not use the abrasive waterjet,
76% use the pneumatic hammer,
83% use the diamond blade power saw,
9% use the mechanical brushes and
9% use other techniques such as verneer trenches and torches.
Conclusion and Limitations
It appeared after studying the advantages and disadvantages of the waterjet, that this is a tool that the construction industry should find very useful. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the case. Many of the regional companies do not seem to have any significant knowledge of the waterjet, thus remaining unwilling to employ this technology.
The responses that we have received have left us with the inability to comment on the cost effectiveness of the waterjet in the construction industry. The majority of companies that we contacted do not employ the waterjet in their companies, nor d o most of them have any knowledge of the abrasive waterjet. These companies seem to be conservative to new technology and unwilling to take risks. This may also be due to the fact that many companies are unwilling to invest in a new technology that is not widely used.
REFERENCES
[1] Behringer -Plosonka, Catherine A., "Waterjet Cutting - A Technology Afloat on a Sea of Potential", Manufacturing Engineering, Vol. 99, Nov. 1987, pp. 37-41.
[2] Haylock, Rob, "Waterjet Cutting", Conference: Automach Australia "85, July 2-5, 1985, Melbourne, Australia.
[3] Slattery, Thomas J., "Abrasive Waterjet Carves Out Metalworking Niche", Machine and Tool Blue Book, July 1991, pp. 31-34.
[4] Hitchox, Alan L., "Vote of Confidence for Abrasive Waterjet Cutting", Metal Progress, Vol. 130, July 1986, pp. 33-34.
[5] Flow International, 1995.
[6] Steinhauser, John, "Abrasive Waterjets: on the ‘Cutting Edge’ of Technology", Flow Systems, Inc.
[7] "Jetpac Intensifier Pump - Model 40DT", Flow Specs, FS-130, Sept. 1989.
[8] Ayers, Gary W., "Principles of Waterjet Cutting", Tappi Journal, Vol. 70, Sept 1993, pp. 91-94.
[9] Zaring, K., "Advanced Abrasive Waterjet Hardware and Cutting Performance", 5th American Waterjet Conference, Aug. 1989.
[10] Hashish, M., "Steel Cutting With Abrasive Waterjets", 6th International Symposium on Jet Cutting Technology, April 1982.
[11] Vijay, M.M., "A Critical Examination of the Use of Waterjets for Medical Applications", 5th American Waterjet Conference, Aug. 1989.
[12] Medeot, R., "History, Theory and Practice of Hydrodemolition", 5th American Waterjet Conference, Aug. 1989.
[13] Schmid, R.F., "High Pressure Hydro-Milling of Concrete Surfaces", 5th American Waterjet Conference, Aug. 1989.
[14] Peart, John W., "Lead-Pigmented Paints - Their Impact on Bridge Maintenance Strategies and Costs", Public Roads, Vol. 52 Sept. 1992, pp. 47-51.
[15] Katausakas, Ted, "DOT Coasts Rusting Bridges With Layers of Problems", R&D Magazine, May 1990, pp. 43-48.
[16] Baldry, Ian, "Surface Preparation", Civil Engineering (London, England), April 1987, pp. 47-48.
[17] Falcone, Linda M. Tonkay, Gregory L., "Economic Feasibility of a Tool to Remove Rivets From Railway Bridges", Proposal to The Canadian National Railway, April 1990.
Posts
1 comment:
Thank you for your nice post.I really enjoy to visit your post.Good job keep posting..
High Pressure Cleaning
Post a Comment