Research Papers: Multiphase Flows

Detection of Cavitation in a Venturi Injector With a Combined Method of Strain Gauges and Numerical Simulation

[+] Author and Article Information
Yuncheng Xu

College of Water Resources
and Civil Engineering,
China Agricultural University,
Beijing 100083, China
e-mail: ycxu1990@gmail.com

Yan Chen

College of Water Resources
and Civil Engineering,
China Agricultural University,
Beijing 100083, China
e-mail: caihua2008@yeah.net

Jianqiang He

College of Water Resources
and Architectural Engineering,
Northwest A&F University,
Shaanxi 712100, China
e-mail: mythbird@hotmail.com

Haijun Yan

College of Water Resources
and Civil Engineering,
China Agricultural University,
Beijing 100083, China
e-mail: yanhj@cau.edu.cn

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Fluids Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING. Manuscript received March 29, 2013; final manuscript received February 17, 2014; published online May 15, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Olivier Coutier-Delgosha.

J. Fluids Eng 136(8), 081302 (May 15, 2014) (8 pages) Paper No: FE-13-1210; doi: 10.1115/1.4026879 History: Received March 29, 2013; Revised February 17, 2014

The fertilizer suction capability of a Venturi injector is dependent on the vacuum pressure in the throat portion. As the vacuum level drops below the saturation vapor pressure, the pressure decreases to a particular value corresponding to the maximum pressure difference (Δpmax) between inlet and outlet pressures, and critical cavitation is likely to occur, leading to an unstable suction flow rate and low fertilization uniformity. A new method of using strain gauges to detect cavitation in Venturi injectors was explored experimentally and verified numerically under various operating conditions. The standard deviation (SD) of the measured strain values and the simulated values of the vapor-phase volume fraction (Vf) were used to evaluate the influence of cavitation. The results showed that both the rate of increase (ηm) of the average SD and the average growth rate (AGR) of the simulated cavitation length reach relatively large values at the maximum pressure difference (Δpmax), where the measured suction flow rate simultaneously reaches a maximum. In addition, SD and Vf shared similar variation trends at pressure differences larger than the corresponding Δpmax under various conditions. This new cavitation detection method has been proved to be feasible and reliable. It helps to determine accurately the value of Δpmax at different inlet pressures and to ensure that the Venturi injector runs in a safe operating-pressure range.

Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


MWR, 2012, 2011 Statistic Bulletin on China Water Activities, China Water Power Press, Beijing (in Chinese).
Bar-Yosef, B., 1999, Advances in Fertigation, Advances in Agronomy, Elsevier Academic, San Diego, CA.
Goldberg, D. G. B., and Rimon, D., 1976, Drip Irrigation: Principles, Design and Agricultural Practice., Drip Irrigation Scientific, New York.
Schwankl, L., 2001, Fertigation and Injection Systems, Drip Irrigation for Row Crops, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM.
Kedrinskii, V. K., 1976, “Negative-Pressure Profile in Cavitation Zone at Underwater Explosion Near Free-Surface,” Acta Astronaut., 3(7–8), pp. 623–632. [CrossRef]
Jin, Y. K., Xia, C. H., and Fang, B. L., 2006, “Research and Development of Venturi Fertilizer Applicator Series,” China Rural Water and Hydropower, 5, pp. 14–16.
Yan, H. J., Chu, X. Y., Wang, M., and Wang, Z. Y., 2010, “Injection Performance of Venturi Injector in Micro-Irrigation System,” J. Drain. Irrig. Mach. Eng., 28(3), pp. 251–255.
Barre, S., Rolland, J., Boitel, G., Goncalves, E., and Patella, R. F., 2009, “Experiments and Modeling of Cavitating Flows in Venturi: Attached Sheet Cavitation,” Eur. J. Mech. B/Fluids, 28(3), pp. 444–464. [CrossRef]
Ardiansyah, T., Takahashi, M., Asaba, M., and Miura, K., 2011, “Cavitation Damage in Flowing Liquid Sodium Using Venturi Test Section,” J. Power Energy Syst., 5(1), pp. 77–85. [CrossRef]
Ĉudina, M., 2003, “Detection of Cavitation Phenomenon in a Centrifugal Pump Using Audible Sound,” Mech. Syst. Signal Pr., 17(6), pp. 1335–1347. [CrossRef]
Ĉudina, M., and Prezelj, J., 2009, “Detection of Cavitation in Operation of Kinetic Pumps. Use of Discrete Frequency Tone in Audible Spectra,” Appl. Acoust., 70(4), pp. 540–546. [CrossRef]
Pu, Z. Q., Zhang, W., Shi, K. R., and Wu, Y. L., 2005, “Research on Turbine Cavitation Testing Based on Wavelet Singularity Detection,” Proc. CSEE, 25(8), pp. 105–109.
Liu, Y., He, Y. Y., and Chen, D. R., 2009, “Wavelet Entropy Based Condition Test and Identification of Cavitation,” J. Mech. Strength, 31(1), pp. 19–23.
Al-Hashmi, S. A., 2009, “Statistical Analysis of Vibration Signals for Cavitation Detection,” IEEE Symposium on Industrial Electronics and Applications, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Yazici, B., Tuncer, I. H., and Ali Ak, M., 2007, “Numerical & Experimental Investigation of Flow Through a Cavitating Venturi,” 3rd International Conference on Recent Advances in Space Technologies, Istanbul, Turkey.
Maekawa, A., Shimizu, Y., Suzuki, M., and Fujita, K., 2005, “Experimental Study of Coupling Vibration Characteristics Between a Thin Cylindrical Water Storage Tank and Its Contained Liquid,” Proceedings of the ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, Denver, CO, July 17–21, pp. 113–120. [CrossRef]
Zhang, C., Pettigrew, M. J., and Mureithi, N. W., 2006, “Correlation Between Vibration Excitation Forces and the Dynamic Characteristics of Two-Phase Flow in a Rotated Triangular Tube Bundle,” Proceedings of the ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, Vancouver, Canada, July 23–27, pp. 325–334.
Inaba, K., and Shepherd, J. E., 2010, “Dynamics of Cavitating Flow and Flexural Waves in Fluid-Filled Tubes Subject to Axial Impact,” Proceedings of the ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, Bellevue, Washington, July 18–22, pp. 89–98. [CrossRef]
Coutier-Delgosha, O., Reboud, J. L., and Delannoy, Y., 2003, “Numerical Simulation of the Unsteady Behaviour of Cavitating Flows,” Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids, 42, pp. 527–548.
Dittakavi, N., Chunekar, A., and Frankel, S., 2010, “Large Eddy Simulation of Turbulent-Cavitation Interactions in a Venturi Nozzle,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 132(12), p. 121301. [CrossRef]
Mejri, I., Bakir, F., Rey, R., and Belamri, T., 2006, “Comparison of Computational Results Obtained From a Homogeneous Cavitation Model With Experimental Investigations of Three Inducers,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 128(6), pp. 1308–1323. [CrossRef]
Nouri, N. M., Moghimi, M., and Mirsaeedi, S. M. H., 2010, “Large Eddy Simulation of Natural Cavitating Flows in Venturi-Type Sections,” J. Mech. Eng. Sci., 225(2), pp. 369–381. [CrossRef]
Yan, H. J., and Chu, X. Y., 2011, “Numerical Simulation for Influence of Throat Diameter on Venturi Injector Performance,” J. Drain. Irrig. Mach. Eng., 29(4), pp. 359–363.
Launder, B. E., and Spalding, D. B., 1972, Lectures in Mathematical Models of Turbulence, Academic Press, London.
Schnerr, G. H., and Sauer, J., 2001, “Physical and Numerical Modeling of Unsteady Cavitation Dynamics,” Fourth International Conference on Multiphase Flow, New Orleans, LA, May 27–June 1.
Singhal, A. K., Athavale, M. M., Li, H., and Jiang, Y., 2002, “Mathematical Basis and Validation of the Full Cavitation Model,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 124(3), pp. 617–624. [CrossRef]
Philip, J., Zwart, A. G. G., and Belamri, T., 2004, “A Two-Phase Flow Model for Predicting Cavitation Dynamics,” International Conference on Multiphase Flow, Yokohama, Japan.
Yuan, W., Günter, J. S., and Schnerr, H., 2001, “Modeling and Computation of Unsteady Cavitation Flows in Injection Nozzles,” Méc. Ind., 2(5), pp. 383–394. [CrossRef]
Kozubkova, M., and Rautova, J., 2009, “Cavitation Modeling of the Flow in Laval Nozzle,” 3rd IAHR International Meeting of the Workgroup on Cavitation and Dynamic Problems in Hydraulic Machinery and Systems, Czech Republic.
Sayyaadi, H., 2010, “Instability of the Cavitating Flow in a Venturi Reactor,” Fluid Dyn. Res., 42(5), p. 055503. [CrossRef]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Relationship between SD of strains at the throat portion of the Venturi injector and the pressure differences (Δp) under seven different inlet pressures. Vertical lines of Δp1, Δp2, and Δp3 correspond to an inlet pressure of 0.45 MPa.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Schematic views of volume–throat and volume–diffusion domains. The blue volumes represent the computational domains of the two spherical volumes.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Schematic diagram of experimental device for cavitation detection in a Venturi injector, including valves (components 1, 2, 3, 9, and 10), turbine flow meters [4,8], pressure gauges [5,7], a Venturi injector with strain gauges attached [6], and a dynamic strain indicator [11]. Dimensions in millimeters (mm).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Internal structure of the Venturi injector with strain gauges attached to its surface. Dimensions in millimeters (mm).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Relationship between the SD ratio (SDm/SD1) at the throat portion and the diffusion portion and the pressure difference (Δp) at an inlet pressure of 0.40 MPa. Three eigenvalues, Δp1, Δp2, and Δp3. Maximum pressure difference Δpmax.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Relationship between SD of strain values at the throat portion and suction flow rate (Q3) at inlet pressures of (a) 0.30–0.45 MPa and (b) 0.15–0.25 MPa

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Relationship between maximum pressure difference (Δpmax) and inlet pressure (p1)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Schematic diagram of internal flow in a Venturi injector for the section Z = 0, inlet pressure of 0.40 MPa, and outlet pressure of 0.011 MPa

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Distributions of vapor-phase volume fraction (Vf) at an inlet pressure of 0.40 MPa

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Variation of cavitation length with pressure difference (Δp) at inlet pressures (p1) of 0.40 and 0.30 MPa. The diffusion portion starts from X = 2 mm (dashed horizontal line).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Variation of simulated vapor-phase volume fraction (Vf) and SD of strain values at (a) the throat portion and (b) the diffusion portion at an inlet pressure of 0.40 MPa

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Relationship between simulated vapor-phase volume fraction (Vf) and SD of strain values at inlet pressures of 0.30, 0.35, 0.40, and 0.45 MPa




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