Comparison image of sandblast vs. grit blast
A comparison of the "sandblast" and "grit blast" processes before and after on the test piece was conducted.
Our company owns a manual blast facility with dimensions of 6m in width, 10m in depth, and 3m in height, which can accommodate the processing of complex fabricated products. This facility can be applied to various purposes, including surface preparation before anti-corrosion treatment, paint stripping for maintenance items, removal of oxide films after heat treatment, and improving adhesion through increased surface area. We used SS400 products as test pieces and verified the results by changing only the abrasive material while using the same equipment and air pressure. For grit blasting, we used IKK steel grit TGE-100, and for sandblasting, we used NeoBlast G-1. The results were as expected, with both methods effectively removing scale and rust. However, there were clear differences in surface roughness and appearance. Grit blasting resulted in a slightly rougher surface, while sandblasting produced a somewhat dull finish. At our company, we differentiate between sandblasting and grit blasting based on the size and material of the workpieces, recommended surface roughness, and whether masking is required. By utilizing the characteristics of each method and performing optimal processing, we achieve high-quality finishes. Harada Iron Works Hiroshima Official Link
- 企業：原田鉄工
- 価格：Other
