0
Multiphase Flows

Experimental and Computational Investigations to Evaluate the Effects of Fluid Viscosity and Particle Size on Erosion Damage

[+] Author and Article Information
Risa Okita1

Yongli Zhang, Brenton S. McLaury, Siamack A. Shirazi

Department of Mechanical Engineering,  The University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK 74104-3189

1

Corresponding author.

J. Fluids Eng 134(6), 061301 (May 29, 2012) (13 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4005683 History: Received February 24, 2011; Revised December 08, 2011; Published May 29, 2012; Online May 29, 2012

Zhang (2006) utilized computational fluid dynamics (CFD) to examine the validity of erosion models that have been implemented into CFD codes to predict solid-particle erosion in air and water for inconel 625. This work is an extension of Zhang’s work and is presented as a step toward obtaining a better understanding of the effects of fluid viscosity and sand-particle size on measured and calculated erosion ratios, where erosion ratio is defined as the ratio of mass loss of material to mass of solid particles. The erosion ratios of aluminum 6061-T6 were measured for direct impingement conditions of a submerged jet. Fluid viscosities of 1, 10, 25, and 50 cP and sand-particle sizes of 20, 150, and 300 μm were tested. The average fluid speed of the jet was maintained at 10 m/s. Erosion data show that erosion ratios for the 20- and 150-μm particles are reduced as the viscosity is increased, whereas, surprisingly, the erosion ratios for the 300-μm particles do not seem to change much for the higher viscosities. For all viscosities considered, larger particles produced higher erosion ratios, for the same mass of sand, than smaller particles. Concurrently, an erosion equation has been generated based on erosion testing of the same material in air. The new erosion model has been compared to available models and has been implemented into a commercially available CFD code to predict erosion ratios for a variety of flow conditions, flow geometries, and particle sizes. Because particle speed and impact angle greatly influence erosion ratios of the material, calculated particle speeds were compared with measurements. Comparisons reveal that, as the particles penetrate the near wall shear layer, particles in the higher viscosity liquids tend to slow down more rapidly than particles in the lower viscosity liquids. In addition, CFD predictions and particle-speed measurements are used to explain why the erosion data for larger particles is less sensitive to the increased viscosities.

Copyright © 2012 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Flow chart of erosion prediction using CFD

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Schematic of the experimental facility

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Microscopic pictures of abrasive particles

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Schematic of facility used for erosion measurements in air

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

LDV measurement location map

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

CFD mesh of the flow region and boundary conditions

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Diagram of grid adaptation

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Comparison of predicted particle (120 μm) speeds for finer and original grid (1 and 50 cP)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Erosion ratio versus viscosity for aluminum 6061 with different particle sizes

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Erosion ratio versus impact angle for Al 6061 in air (150 μm)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Erosion ratio versus impact angle for Al 6061 in air (300 μm)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Normalized erosion ratio versus impact angle in air –150 and 300 μm

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Erosion ratio versus impact angle at V = 13 m/s (150 μm, aluminum)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Erosion ratio versus impact angle at V = 13 m/s (300 μm, aluminum)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Erosion ratio versus particle Reynolds number

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Contour plots of measured particle speed for 120 μm (1 and 100 cP)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 17

Measured particle speed Vz at z = 1 mm

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 18

Measured and predicted particle speeds versus axial distance

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 19

Measured and predicted particle speeds versus axial distance

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 20

Measured and predicted particle speeds versus axial distance

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 21

Measured particle speeds versus axial distance at r = 8 mm – 120 and 550 μm

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 22

Predicted particle speeds versus axial distance at r = 8 mm – 120 and 550 μm

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 23

Measured d(speed)/dz versus z distance at r = 8 mm – 120 and 550 μm (near wall)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 24

Predicted d(speed)/dz versus z distance at r = 8 mm – 120 and 550 μm (near wall)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 25

Normalized predicted erosion ratio and experimental data for aluminum

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 26

Normalized predicted erosion ratio and experimental data for aluminum

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 27

Normalized predicted erosion ratio and experimental data for aluminum

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 28

Number of particles impacting versus impact number for 20, 150, and 300 μm

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 29

Measured and predicted erosion ratios for first impacts (20 μm, Al 6061)

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In