A comparison: plasma and oxyfuel cutting

Oxyfuel and plasma are the most widely-used cutting technologies in the Middle East. And although oxyfuel has long been seen as a sufficient cutting system for a variety of needs, plasma is fast-becoming the cutting solution of choice as technology improvements in recent years have made it even more versatile than oxyfuel – yet with greater cost efficiencies.
With these basic differences between oxyfuel and plasma, companies in the Middle East may be able to instantly decide on which cutting system to use based on their critical business needs. But for more specific factors such as ease-of-use, cut quality, productivity and cost, this article explores the comparisons that companies should consider before deciding whether oxyfuel or plasma is the best way forward.

Ease-of-use
In recent years, ease-of-use of technical processes has been gaining importance as a key decision factor in India, primarily because it minimises training, improves safety, and ultimately increases profitability. And comparing oxyfuel to plasma, the latter prevails over most ease-of-use considerations. For one, plasma is easier and safer to operate because it runs on compressed air. This means that there are no gases to mix or regulate. In using oxyfuel, operators need to set and maintain the flame chemistry. This skill takes time and practice to master. The gases used in the oxyfuel process also pose a safety hazard in the presence of the open flame.

Cut quality
As demand for Middle East exports continues on the upswing, manufacturers now have to compete on product quality more than ever. This makes cut quality another driving factor when companies select their metal cutting equipment. Overall, plasma produces more precise and cleaner cuts than oxyfuel.

Productivity
Productivity is important to any company because it boils down to the number of parts produced within a given time period. At a minimum, plasma users can expect speeds that are twice as fast as oxyfuel, for metals that are 25mm thick or less. And as thickness decreases, those speeds increase, enabling speed advantages of up to 12 times faster over oxyfuel. This increased speed means operators can cut more parts in less time.

Operating cost
One final and equally important factor to consider here is operating cost. For plasma and oxyfuel, three factors – consumables, power and gas – impact the overall operating cost of the system. While the operating cost of oxyfuel is seemingly lower than plasma, it is not the most economical or efficient system to operate. The faster cutting speed of plasma produces more parts so operating costs are spread out over a larger number of parts. The lower cost per part coupled with faster cutting speeds support the fact that plasma results in higher profitability for users, and is therefore more economically efficient than oxyfuel.
For more information please visit: www.hypertherm.com.