Not Applicable.
Not Applicable.
Not Applicable.
The present invention relates to control of percussive hammer devices, such as pneumatic percussion drills and rock breakers.
A downhole pneumatic hammer is, in principle, a simple device consisting of a ported air feed conduit, more commonly known as a feed tube, check valve assembly above the feed tube to preventingress of wellbore fluids into the drill, a reciprocating piston, a case, a drill bit, and associated retaining hardware. The typical valveless device, for example, possesses on the order of 15 components. The reciprocation of the piston is accomplished by sequentially feeding high pressure air to either the power chamber of the case (the volume that when pressurized moves the piston towards the bit shank) or return chamber of the case. The regulation of the air flow can be accomplished either by use of passages (e.g., slots, grooves, ports) machined into the feed tube, piston body, or hammer case; or a combination of active valving and porting through either the piston, the case, or an additional sleeve.
However, existing designs do not provide the most efficient use of the total air energy available because they have built-in inherent inefficiencies. The present invention greatly reduces these inefficiencies.
A pneumatic device control apparatus and method comprising a ported valve slidably fitted over a feed tube of the pneumatic device, and using a compliant biasing device to constrain motion of the valve to provide asymmetric timing for extended pressurization of a power chamber and reduced pressurization of a return chamber of the pneumatic device. The pneumatic device can be a pneumatic hammer drill.
The accompanying drawings, which are incorporated into and form a part of the specification, illustrate one or more embodiments of the present invention and, together with the description, serve to explain the principles of the invention. The drawings are only for the purpose of illustrating one or more preferred embodiments of the invention and are not to be construed as limiting the invention. In the drawings:
The present invention is of a sliding feed tube pressure control valve for reciprocating hammer drills that is more efficient and produces more drilling power. Typically these are pneumatic (air) percussive drills, but could also use other motive fluids (such as water, or gas other than air).
An ideal cycle for maximizing power available from the input air at a given pressure is as follows: 1) during the power stroke, feed high pressure air to the power chamber for the entire duration of the power stroke while simultaneously venting the return chamber to the borehole to minimize the force in the direction opposite the piston motion; and 2) during the return stroke, feed high pressure air to the return chamber for the entire duration of the return stroke while simultaneously venting the power chamber.
Such a cycle would require high precision active valving to sequence air flow to power and return chambers and does not currently exist commercially. Two different air regulation methods are commonly used in industry, both of which involve compromises of the ideal cycle. Both strategies will be briefly discussed in the following.
The approach typically taken by most manufacturers that produce valveless hammers has the following cycle: 1) pressurize the power chamber over a limited distance while venting the return chamber to the borehole; 2) disconnect the power and return chambers from the pressure reservoir and borehole and letting the expanding air in the power chamber continue to accelerate the piston while simultaneously compressing the air in the return chamber; 3) vent the pressure in the power chamber and begin pressurizing the return chamber; and 4) after the piston strikes the bit shank, the pressure in the return chamber moves the piston in the return chamber and the cycle effectively reverses.
The pressurization of the return chamber prior to impact is a significant source of inefficiency in the system, as the working fluid performs work decelerating the piston thereby reducing the energy available to reduce rock. The other deficiency of the valveless approach is a design-limited power stroke pressurization length. Design-limited in this context is used to refer to a limitation imposed by the prescribed length over which pressure is delivered to the return side of the piston. This distance over which pressure is applied to the return side dictates the ultimate return position of the piston thereby fixing the distance over which pressure will be applied during the power stroke. Therefore, in theory, increasing the length of the maximum available power stroke pressurization has no effect on the performance of the system because the return position of the piston will always be limited by the maximum piston velocity produced by rebound and the return stroke pressurization and the distance over which that velocity is brought to zero with opposing pressure. This is somewhat compensated for by increasing the distance over which there is no communication with either the pressure or return chamber thereby utilizing the expansion of the air in the pressure chamber to power the piston.
By contrast, an ideal active valving approach would permit an arbitrary return stroke length by controlling return and power pressurization as desired. One benefit of the valveless design is a reduced part count. The lack of active valving significantly simplifies the design and eliminates the risks associated with valve failure.
The present invention uses a novel valved hammer configuration. The functionality of the sliding valve produces asymmetric timing that is used to provide extended pressurization of the power chamber and reduced pressurization of the return chamber during the power stroke. The valve is housed within the piston and controls the distribution of air from the feed tube to the power or return chamber by covering or exposing ports in the piston.
The valve can be retained and controlled by a spring bias system connected to the feed tube, which is used to limit valve motion and provide a return force to push it away from the bit. This valve retention system results in a relatively small overall valve range of motion (compared to the piston stroke) and considerably lower cycle velocities. Furthermore, valve direction changes are comparatively gradual with no impact loads. Valve position is controlled by the combination of spring force and air pressure acting on the exposed rear (away from the bit) cross-section surface. When no air pressure is acting on the rear valve surface, the spring bias shifts the valve away from the bit. When the piston is in a particular position relative to the valve, air pressure acting on the rear valve face 72 moves it towards the bit, with the consequence of modifying the flow of air from the feed tube to the piston ports.
The shifting of the valve towards the bit can also be accomplished by using a contact surface (e.g., inside shoulder 46 in
The hammer cycle and valve functionality is described in the cycle steps listed below with reference to the accompanying layout drawings
In one embodiment, typical distances are as follows (referenced to the piston strike position at the bit shank): power chamber supply/close point during power stroke, about 1.95″ from strike position; power chamber supply/close point during return stroke, about 2.5″ from strike position; return chamber supply open/close position during power stroke, about 0.5″ from strike position; and return chamber supply open/close position during return stroke, about 1.0″ from strike position. In this embodiment, the piston is about 10.5″ long and 2.5″ outer diameter; and the distance from the feed tube support base 54 to the impact face of bit shank 30 is about 15″; the total length of valve 12 is about 3″ and has a diameter about 1″; and the distance the valve travels between its two limiting positions in a cycle is about ¾″.
A preferred cycle is as follows:
Begin power stroke (FIG. 2)—The valve 12 is shifted towards the feed tube base 52. Forward valve slot 62 and feed tube slot 64 communicate to supply pressure to power chamber 32. The power chamber port 22 begins to receive air from the feed tube holes 36. The return chamber 40 is exhausted through the exhaust tube 26.
Power stroke. Close return chamber exhaust (FIG. 3)—Continue to supply power chamber 32. Return chamber exhaust 40 is closed.
Power stroke. Close power chamber supply (FIG. 4)—Return chamber exhaust still closed. No communication to either chamber.
Power stroke. Exhaust power chamber (FIG. 5)—No communication to return chamber.
Power stroke (FIG. 6)—Start supplying return chamber 42 when front valve slot 62 overlaps with forward return chamber port 21, and shift valve 12. Pressure on rear valve face 72 causes it to shift toward bit 30. Start valve shift by compressing trapped volume in closed return chamber 42. Power chamber still in exhaust.
Bit strike (FIG. 7)—Piston 38 impacts bit shank 30. Valve 12 shifted towards bit. Pressure still supplied to return chamber. Power chamber still in exhaust.
Return stroke (FIG. 8)—Close return chamber supply (approximately ½″ before pressurization began on power stroke). Pressure trapped in piston undercut in return chamber keeps valve shifted towards the bit end. Close power chamber exhaust.
Return stroke (FIG. 9)—Open return chamber exhaust 40. Start separation from exhaust tube 26. As the piston's internal pressure drops, spring 16 will allow valve 12 to shift away from bit 30. No communication to power chamber.
Return stroke (FIG. 10)—Open power chamber supply when rear valve slot 64 overlaps with feed tube supply hole 36 and power chamber port 22. This point is approximately 0.5″ farther from the bit than the supply cutoff during the power stroke. The valve shifts and the cycle begins again.
The present invention also provides for a hammer exhaust (hole cleaning) mode. Preferably, when the bit is not engaged against the rock, the bit is backed out and adjusted so that air is directly exhausted through the bit, without any piston cycling. This permits cleaning of the hole and prevents damage to the hammer due to impact without energy transfer to the rock. This mode is shown in
The sliding, ported valve of the invention, shown in detail in
In one embodiment, the valve comprises a first row of four openings (62, 62′, etc), located 90 degrees apart circumferentially. In another embodiment, the valve additionally comprises a second row of four openings (64, 64′, etc), located 90 degrees apart circumferentially, wherein the first set of openings is disposed towards the closed front end 68 of cylinder 66, and the second set of openings is disposed towards the open rear end 76 of cylinder 66. Valve 12 can be made of steel, aluminum alloy, lightweight metal, or graphite reinforced epoxy composite, ceramic, etc. Preferably, the valve slides over the feed tube 24 of the drill, and employs a compliant (i.e., spring-like) biasing device (e.g., a coil spring or die spring) on the feed tube for forcing (urging) the valve in a particular direction (i.e., away from the bit) in a compliant manner in order to assume a particular position relative to the air distribution port 36 in the feed tube. Other mechanical variations of a spring bias means, including Belleville washers, wave springs, elastomers, an air cylinder, etc, can be used instead of a coil spring. Additionally, air pressure supplied through the valve, through porting in the piston to the front face 78 of the valve, can also be used to provide the bias force.
The valve also preferably causes the point during the stroke of the piston at which air is delivered through the piston ports to differ on the return stroke from the power stroke. The valve provides the ability to make the timing of air flow to the drill chambers asymmetric with respect to the power and return stroke of the piston. The valve can control the point during the stroke at which air flow from the feed tube to the power chamber is terminated during the power stroke, thereby permitting a termination point that is closer to the piston impact point. This provides for the ability to pressurize the power chamber over a longer extent of the overall stroke (which improves overall efficiency).
Furthermore, the preferred valve controls the point during the stroke at which air flow from the feed tube to the power chamber is initiated during the return stroke, permitting a power chamber pressurization point that is farther from the piston impact point than when air flow was terminated during the power stroke. This provides for the ability to create a greater overall piston stroke by delaying the onset of pressure in the power chamber, during return motion of the piston, which causes it to decelerate when it is moving away from the bit.
The valve also controls the point during the stroke at which air flow from the feed tube to the return chamber is initiated during the power stroke, permitting an initiation point that is closer to the piston impact point. This provides for the ability to delay the pressurization of the return chamber prior to piston impact. Pressurization of the return chamber prior to impact causes the piston to decelerate, reducing the energy transmitted during impact.
Finally, the valve also controls the point during the stroke at which air flow from the feed tube to the return chamber is supplied during the return stroke, thereby permitting a pressure supply point that is farther from the piston impact point than the point at which pressurization was terminated during the power stroke. This provides for the ability to start pressurizing the return chamber closer to the back end during the return stroke, as compared to the power stroke producing a longer overall piston stroke.
In other words, the present sliding valve design provides asymmetric timing (i.e., variable pressure control) of both the power chamber and the return chamber.
One embodiment uses a “spring” bias on the valve's front end 68 (or other means for biasing) to move the valve away from the bit, combined with using air pressure applied to the valve's rear face 72 to move it towards the bit.
Another embodiment uses a modified internal shoulder (shoulder 80 in
Piston 38 does not have any internal shoulders that push on the valve's front face 78; relying, instead, on the spring bias means to limit the forward extent of the valve's travel towards the bit end.
An alternative device 100 according to the invention is shown in
Note that in the specification and claims, “about” or “approximately” means within twenty percent (20%) of the numerical amount cited.
Although the invention has been described in detail with particular reference to these preferred embodiments, other embodiments can achieve the same results. Variations and modifications of the present invention will be obvious to those skilled in the art and it is intended to cover in the appended claims all such modifications and equivalents. The entire disclosures of all references, applications, patents, and publications cited above are hereby incorporated by reference.
The Government has rights to this invention pursuant to Contract No. DE-AC04-94AL85000 awarded by the U.S. Department of Energy.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
1665046 | Tucker | Apr 1928 | A |
1687317 | Archer | Oct 1928 | A |
2071204 | Hunt | Feb 1937 | A |
3154153 | Wilder et al. | Oct 1964 | A |
4446929 | Pillow | May 1984 | A |
5085284 | Fu | Feb 1992 | A |
5301761 | Fu | Apr 1994 | A |
5715897 | Gustafsson | Feb 1998 | A |
6705415 | Falvey et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6799641 | Lyon et al. | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6883618 | Pascale | Apr 2005 | B1 |
7422074 | Meneghini | Sep 2008 | B2 |
20030047702 | Gunnarsson et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |