| Literature DB >> 35690643 |
Xiaojin Miao1,2, Chunlei Zhang2, Meiping Wu1, Chenglong Ma1, Quanlong Wang3,4.
Abstract
Traditional cleaning processes may be banned in the near future because of the hazards they pose to the environment. In this study, a water jet was used to clean grease residues from steel wires for the first time. The EDS and SEM results of the steel wire rope surfaces and supplementary water jet impact experiments on galvanized steel plates revealed that when the pressure was lower than 50 MPa and the traverse speed was higher than 600 mm/min, the water jet caused minimal damage to the coating. When the pressure was 5 MPa, the cleaning ratio was between 45 and 60%, and the level of cleaning increased with increasing pressure. Two proposed concepts of exposure ratio and nonexposed area were applied to quantitatively analyze the theoretical upper and lower limits for grease that could be cleaned from two typical structures. The results showed that the lower and upper cleaning limits for structure 7 × 3 were 38.1% and 83.3%, while the lower and upper limits for structure 1 × 3 + 5 × 7 were 35.5% and 59.2%, respectively. This result explains why the grease content of structure 7 × 3 was lower than that of structure 1 × 3 + 5 × 7 after cleaning. In addition, the adhesion test results showed that adhesion to the two kinds of steel wire ropes after cleaning was increased by 126% and 145.71%, respectively, which means that additional processes for improving adhesion could be omitted after using a water jet for cleaning. This is an advantage that traditional cleaning processes do not offer.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35690643 PMCID: PMC9188551 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-13955-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.996
Figure 1Two structures.
Chemical composition of the steel wire.
| Element | C | Si | Mn | P | S | Fe | Others |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Content (wt%) | 0.72 | 0.19 | 0.52 | 0.009 | 0.005 | 97.73 | 0.826 |
Parameters of steel wire ropes.
| Samples | Structures | Number of fine steel wire | Diameter of circumscribed circle (mm) | Thickness of zinc coating (μm) | Grease content |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 7 × 3 | 21 | 0.91 | ≤ 50 | Moderate |
| 2 | 1 × 3 + 5 × 7 | 38 | 1.21 | ≤ 50 | Moderate |
| 3 | 7 × 3 | 21 | 0.91 | ≤ 50 | Heavy |
| 4 | 1 × 3 + 5 × 7 | 38 | 1.21 | ≤ 50 | Heavy |
Preliminary settings for process parameters.
| Process parameters | Values |
|---|---|
| Pressure (MPa) | 50, 100, 150, 200 |
| Traverse speed (mm/min) | 600, 1200 |
| Standoff distance (mm) | 175 |
Figure 2SEM and EDS results.
Elemental analysis of the surface.
| Element | Before impacting | After impacting | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weight % | Atomic % | Weight % | Atomic % | |
| O | 18.46 | 47.75 | 16.51 | 44.38 |
| Fe | 5.89 | 4.37 | 6.06 | 4.67 |
| Zn | 75.65 | 47.89 | 77.44 | 50.96 |
Figure 3Scale of damage after impact.
Figure 4Cleaning ratio of the water jet and grease content after cleaning.
Figure 6Gaps and nonexposed areas.
Figure 5The minimum exposure ratio.
Figure 7Cleaning ratio.
Figure 8Enlarged view of the surfaces of the steel wire ropes (P = 50 MPa, U = 1200 mm/min).
Figure 9Adhesion of the surfaces cleaned by a water jet (P = 50 MPa, U = 1200 mm/min).