0
Research Papers: Multiphase Flows

Combined Numerical and Experimental Investigation of the Cavitation Erosion Process

[+] Author and Article Information
Wang Jian

Research Center of Fluid Machinery
Engineering and Technology,
Jiangsu University,
Zhenjiang 202013, China
e-mail: kin.jian.wang@gmail.com

Martin Petkovšek

Laboratory for Water and Turbine Machines,
University of Ljubljana,
Askerceva 6,
Ljubljana 1000, Slovenia
e-mail: martin.petkovsek@fs.uni-lj.si

Liu Houlin

Research Center of Fluid Machinery
Engineering and Technology,
Jiangsu University,
Zhenjiang 202013, China
e-mail: liuhoulin@ujs.edu.cn

Brane Širok

Laboratory for Water and Turbine Machines,
University of Ljubljana,
Askerceva 6,
Ljubljana 1000, Slovenia
e-mail: brane.sirok@fs.uni-lj.si

Matevž Dular

Laboratory for Water and Turbine Machines,
University of Ljubljana,
Askerceva 6,
Ljubljana 1000, Slovenia
e-mail: matevz.dular@fs.uni-lj.si

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Fluids Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING. Manuscript received May 30, 2014; final manuscript received January 7, 2015; published online February 9, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Olivier Coutier-Delgosha.

J. Fluids Eng 137(5), 051302 (May 01, 2015) (9 pages) Paper No: FE-14-1281; doi: 10.1115/1.4029533 History: Received May 30, 2014; Revised January 07, 2015; Online February 09, 2015

We are comparing results of numerical simulations against high-speed simultaneous observations of cavitation and cavitation erosion. We performed fully compressible, cavitating flow simulations to resolve the formation of the shock waves at cloud collapse—these are believed to be directly related to the formation of the damage. Good agreements were noticed between calculations and tests. Two high pressure peaks were found during one cavitation cycle. One relates to the cavitation collapse and the other one corresponds to the cavitation shed off, both contributing to a distinctive stepwise erosion damage growth pattern. Additional, more precise, simulations with much shorter time step were performed to investigate the processes of cavitation collapse and shedding off in more detail. There the importance of small cavitation structures which collapse independently of the main cloud was found. The present work shows a great potential for future development of techniques for accurate predictions of cavitation erosion by numerical means only.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

The Venturi geometry

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Instantaneous image of the aluminum foil (top images), measured damage of the foil up to this instant (middle images) and instantaneous image of cavitation (bottom images) [18]. The flow is from the right to the left.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Computational domain. The flow is from the left to the right.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Simulated (top) and observed (bottom) cavitation structure evolution, the flow direction is from right to left. σ = 1.48 and v = 24.7 m/s.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Monitor points ((a) lies 5 mm, (b) 22 mm, (c) 48 mm, and (d) 65 mm downstream of the throat of the Venturi)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Number of pits, integral damage extent, and absolute pressure at the monitor points A, B, C, and D (see Fig. 5 for positions) as a function of time. At cavitation number σ = 1.48 and velocity at the Venturi throat v = 24.7 m/s, Reynolds number Re = 247,000.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Instantaneous simulated absolute pressure on the venturi surface (top images), measured damage of the foil (middle images), and instantaneous image of cavitation (bottom images). σ = 1.48 and v = 24.7 m/s. The flow direction is from right to left.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Comparison of absolute pressure between different time step simulations at monitor D when cavitation cloud collapsing. σ = 1.48 and v = 24.7 m/s.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Absolute pressure at the Venturi surface at times (a)–(f) during cavitation cloud collapse. σ = 1.48 and v = 24.7 m/s. The flow direction is from right to left.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Comparison of absolute pressure between different time step simulations at monitor A at cavitation shedding off. σ = 1.48 and v = 24.7 m/s.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Absolute pressure on Venturi surface at times (a)–(f) during cavitation shedding process. σ = 1.48 and v = 24.7 m/s. The flow direction is from right to left.

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