Abstract
This study investigated the difference in mechanical response of the martensitic stainless steel X3CrNiMo13-4/S41500/CA6 NM QT780 between hydrodynamic and acoustic cavitation erosion. The results show that acoustic cavitation erosion generates small pits at a high temporal frequency on the material, while hydrodynamic cavitation erosion produces larger pits at a lower frequency. Acoustic cavitation erosion tests have been performed using a 20 kHz ultrasonic horn located at 500 μm in front of a specimen. This experimental setup, known as an indirect method, is inspired from the ASTM G32 standard. Hydrodynamic cavitation erosion tests were conducted with classic experimental conditions of a PREVERO device: a cavitation number of 0.87 corresponding to a flow velocity of 90 m s−1 and an upstream pressure of 40 bars. In addition, for a given exposure time, the percentage of surface covered by the pits is smaller for acoustic cavitation than for hydrodynamic cavitation. Three successive steps have been identified during the damage process: persistent slip bands (PSB) first appear on the surface, cracks initiate and propagate at the PSB locations and nonmetallic interfaces, and finally, parts of the matter are torn off. A careful time examination of the same small area of the exposed sample surface by scanning electron microscopy reveals that acoustic cavitation is faster to initiate damage than hydrodynamic cavitation.
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
