machine design, Vol.5(2013) No.

1, ISSN 1821-1259

pp. 11-16
Original scientific paper

PROPOSED MODEL FOR CAVITATION EROSION TEST RESULTS PRESENTATION

Mircea Octavian POPOVICIU1- Ilare BORDEASU2, *
1 2

Academy of Romanian Scientists, Timisoara, Romania Polytechnic University of Timisoara, Timisoara, Romania

Received (28.01.2012); Revised (22.02.2013); Accepted (27.02.2013) Abstract: Recently in Timisoara Hydraulic Machinery Laboratory was realized a cavitation erosion test facility respecting the new ASTM G32-10 Standard recommendations. An exhaustive comparison between the ASTM recommendations and the realized facility is given. It was also decided to respect the standard for conducting and presentation of tests results. The main purpose of this work is to obtain a model for the presentation of future test results. The selected test material was the stainless steel 12/8 with very good cavitation erosion behaviour. There were tested three specimens designated 1, 2 and 3. The arithmetic mean of the specimens 1-3, for each testing time, gives the value considered representative for the material. The results are compared with the stainless steel OH12NDL used in the past for manufacturing numerous hydraulic turbines. For plotting the results, different types of regression equations have been chosen such as polynomials and an exponentials. In addition to the characteristic curves, the ASTM G32-10 Standard recommends the presentation of some other important parameters, such as: total cumulative mass loss, cumulative mean depth of erosion, maximum rate of erosion nominal incubation time, erosion threshold time and the loss for extended exposure. For the tested material all these parameters are presented and their importance is discussed. Key words: cavitation erosion characteristic curves, vibratory cavitation apparatus, stainless steel, regression equations

1. INTRODUCTION
For the new T2 cavitation erosion facility, with piezoelectric crystals, realized recently in the Timisoara Hydraulic Machinery Laboratory (THML) it was decided to change radically the results presentation, taking into account both the recommendations of the ASTM G32-10 Standard and the experience achieved in the past by using T1, the old magnetostrictive device, with nickel tube [2], [3], [6]. For T1 the obtained results were given as time dependence (with the time expressed in seconds) of mass or volume losses (mg or mm3). In G-32 Standard is recommended the use of mean depth erosion (m) against time (expressed in hours). Evidently, the general aspect of the characteristic curves remains unchanged but

the numerical data present great differences. For beginning it was chosen a material with very good but not excellent cavitation erosion behaviour, namely a stainless steel with 12% chromium and 8% Ni. To obtain the characteristic curves there were used polynomial and exponential equations.

2. TEST FACILITIES
The test facility T2 can be seen in Fig. 1. The comparison of the T2 main parameters with those of the G-32 Standard are given in Table 1 [1]. The test specimen important data are compared in Table 2.

Test facility
1-Horn, 2-Electronic system, 3-Temperature control system, liquid vessel and cooling coil, 5- Ventilation system

Diagram of test facility 1-Piezoelectric transducer, 2-Ultrasonic generator, 2- Cooling system, 3-Liquid temperature control

Fig.1. T2 vibratory device

* Correspondence Authors Address: Polytechnica University of Timisoara, Faculty of Mechanical, Bvd. Mihai Viteazul no.1, 300222 Timisoara, Romania, [email protected]

Mircea Octavian Popoviciu, Ilare Bordeasu: Proposed Model for Cavitation Erosion Test Results Presentation; Machine Design, Vol.5(2013) No.1, ISSN 1821-1259; pp. 11-16

Table 1. Test Facility Important Parameters No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 *Mandatory Table 2. Test Specimen Important Data No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 *M- mandatory M M M M* M Data Diameter (D) Thickness (H) Chamfer or radius (E) Working face perpendicularity on transducer axis Radial run-out (r) Thread nom. diam. (T) Thread length (L) Specimen mass (steel) MU mm mm mm mm mm mm mm g G32 15.90.05 4...10 0.15 0.025 0.05 M10-10.0 10.01.0 15.69 THML 15.8 10 0.15 0.025 0.05 M12-1.0 101.0 16...17.2 M M M M M M M* Parameter Type Horn profile Acoustic power Frequency Peak to peak ampl. Cavitation liquid Depth of water Specimen immersion Liquid temperature Air pressure Amplitude control Liquid temp. control Cooling system MU W kHz m mm mm C mmHg G32 Piezoelectric Magnetostrictive Catenoidal Exponential Stepped 250..1000 20 505% Distilled water 10015 124 252 7606% Immersed External THML Piezoelectric Conical 500 20 505% Distilled water 100 10 230.5 755...765 Digital control Digital control Immersed

3. TESTED MATERIAL
The tested material was obtained as 300 g test samples in a furnace with electron beams. The resulted chemical composition was determined with a Foundry Master spectrometer. The steel symbolized 12/8 has as principal composition: C= 0,036%, Cr=12,206%, Ni=7,847%, Fe=78,365, Si=0,696%, Mn=0,427% and W=0,146%. During the chemical composition analyze, other elements have been found, with the concentration under 0.1%: P, As, V, Nb, S, Ti, Co, Mo, Al and Cu. The equivalent content of chromium (Cr)e=13,548 and nickel (Ni)e=9,158 was determined using the well known relations [2]. After casting, the samples were subjected to a hardening heat treatment. From each sample there were manufactured three specimens designated 1, 2 and 3. The arithmetic mean of the specimens 1-3, for each testing time give the value m, considered representative for the tested material. Mechanical properties: Rm = 1002 MPa, Rp0.2 = 701 MPa, hardness = 30 HRC, elongation A5= 8.8 %, rupture constriction Z= 31.3%. In conformity with Schfller diagram, the microstructure is formed by 90 % martensite and 10 % austenite. 12

4. G32-10 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR

REPORTING THE TEST RESULTS

ASME G32-10 [1] recommends reporting the information listed below, if applicable, for each material tested: 1. identification, specification, composition, heat treatment, and mechanical properties including hardness, measured on the specimen, sample or the stock from which it came; 2. the method of preparing test specimens and test surface (preferably including surface roughness measurement, before tests beginning); 3. number of specimens tested; 4. a tabulation giving the following information on each specimen tested: total cumulative length of exposure in hours (h), total cumulative mass loss in milligrams (mg) and total cumulative mean depth of erosion (MDE) in micrometers (m); 5. maximum rate of erosion; 6. nominal incubation time: the intercept on the time axis of the straight-line extension of the maximum-slope

Mircea Octavian Popoviciu, Ilare Bordeasu: Proposed Model for Cavitation Erosion Test Results Presentation; Machine Design, Vol.5(2013) No.1, ISSN 1821-1259; pp. 11-16

portion of the cumulative erosion-time curve; while this is not a true measure of the incubation stage, it serves to locate the maximum erosion rate line on the cumulative erosion versus time coordinates; 7. erosion threshold time: the exposure time required to reach a mean depth of erosion of 1.0 m; 8. the cumulative exposure times to reach a mean depths of 50, 100, and possibly 200 m; designated t50, t100 and t200 respectively; 9. a tabulation giving the normalized erosion resistance and normalized incubation resistance for each material tested, relative to one of the reference materials, included in the test. Calculate these values from averaged data of replicate tests of the same material; 10. tabulation of cumulative mass losses and corresponding cumulative exposure time for each specimen; 11. plot of cumulative mean depth of erosion versus cumulative exposure time for each specimen; 12. report any special or unusual occurrences or observations; Table 3. Tests Results Specimen Total length of exposure Total cumulative mass loss Tot. cum. mean depth of erosion *Measurement unit The comparison is made with a steel, used for the manufacturing numerous hydraulic turbines. The chosen steel was OH12NDL. Specimens from this steel were tested in the same facility and presented 26.51 m mean depth erosion after 2.75 hours. It results that 12/8 has better cavitation erosion qualities.

5. PRECAUTION MEASURES TAKEN DURING TESTS

The total exposure time was 2.75 hours, divided in 12 periods, the first of 0.08335 hours, the second 0.176 h and the rest of 0.25 h. The total exposure duration was chosen empirically, taking into account the data disposition in the plots. In the MDE=f(t) plot, the experimental points present reduced scatter and frequently the last four points respect a linear regression. Consequently it was considered that after 1.5 h of testing, the erosion progresses in a constant manner and the maximum exposure time must not overcame 2.75 hours. Before beginning the tests but also after each period, the specimens were washed successively with tap water, distilled water, alcohol and acetone, carefully dried and finally weighted. From each sample were manufactured five probes but only three were tested until the final exposure time. The spare pieces were used in exceptional situations when one of the specimens suffered damages during the tests.

6. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
The principal results required by G32 Standard are presented in Table 3.

MU* hours mg m

S1 2.75 19.44 12.664

S2 2.75 18.01 11.733

S3 2.75 18.29 11.915

m 2.75 18.58 12.104

T2. OH12NDL and 12/8

30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 0,25 0,5 0,75 1 1,25 1,5 1,75 2 2,25 2,5 2,75 3
12/8 OH

6.1. Cumulative mean depth of erosion

The characteristic curve mean depth of erosion against time for the mean of tested specimens is presented in Figure 2. From the points disposition results that the simplest regression line is that obtained with a second degree polynomial. It also results with clarity that for short exposure time the points have the trend to follow a curved line but for longer exposure time a straight line represent better the points disposure. For comparisons in the same figure there are presented also the data for the reference steel OH12NDL. Figure 3 present the normalized MDE relative to the reference material. It can be seen that the erosion of the tested steel is only 45% from that of OH12NDL stainless steel.

MDE h <m>

Time x <hours>

Fig.2. Comparison between OH12NDL and 12/8 steels

T2. Normalized MDE (12-8/OH12NDL)
0,50 0,45 0,40 0,35 0,30 0,25 0,20 0,15 0,10 0,05 0,00 0 0,25 0,5 0,75 1 1,25 1,5 1,75 2 Exposure Time x <hours> 2,25 2,5 2,75 3

Fig.3. Normalized Mean Depth Erosion (12-8/OH12NDL) 13

Rate

Mircea Octavian Popoviciu, Ilare Bordeasu: Proposed Model for Cavitation Erosion Test Results Presentation; Machine Design, Vol.5(2013) No.1, ISSN 1821-1259; pp. 11-16

6.2. Regression Equations

In a previous paper [3] a second degree polynomial regression was applied. Such an equation is useful only when the results can be presented exclusively as cumulative loss against time. In the present paper there were applied both fourth degree and exponential equations. The exponential equation is [2]:

Table 5 gives the same values for the fourth degree polynomial equations. Table 4. Exponential Equation Coefficients and Values Specimen UM m 1 2 3 A 4.92 4.98 4.86 4.86 B 0.818 0.946 0.765 0.808 ser m 0.100 0.143 0.287 0.211 IT99% m 0.300 0.429 0.861 0.634

H A x 1 e B x

(1)

In Table 4 are given the coefficients of the exponential equation, as well as the standard estimation error and the tolerance interval for a 0.99 probability.

Table 5. Fourth Degree Regression Equations Coefficients and Values Sp. UM m 1 2 3 Equation 0.1783x4 1.411x3 + 4.240x2 0.3128x + 0.05413 0.1981x4 1.578x3 + 4.575x2 0.1831x +0.0 5701 0.1954x4 1.512x3 + 4.624x2 1.116x + 0.1153 0.1407x4 1.139x3 + 3.513x2 + 0.3646x 0.00971 R2 0,9998 0,9960 0,9991 0,9992 R 0,9980 0,9995 0,9996 0,9999 ser m
0.09 0.13 0.18 0.17

IT99% m
0.27 0.39 0.55 0.51

The great value of R, for all specimens, confirms that the fourth degree polynomial approximate excellent the measured points. Besides the correlation coefficient, it was computed also the standard estimation error:

equations the 0.99 probability tolerance interval is very restraint but encompasses all the measured points. The fourth degree polynomial is a little bit better because it gives a smaller tolerance interval.

ser

(h H ) 2 n2

(2)

which represents the scatter in the vertical direction of the observed points about the regression line. Assuming a normal distribution of the scatter, and a 99% probability, the 99% tolerance interval is obtained as:

TI 3 ser

(3)

Fig.5. Measured data and tolerance interval for polynomial equations Incubation Time Analyzing the problem of the incubation time the G-32-10 Standard states that this period is usually thought to represent the accumulation of plastic deformation and internal stresses under the surface that precedes significant material loss. Exact measures for the duration of the incubation period can not be obtained, so two approximations erosion threshold time and nominal incubation period are recommended to be reported [1]. Considering that 1.0 m mean depth of erosion is an accurately measurable value, it was defined as erosion threshold time. On the other hand the nominal incubation time was defined as the intercept with the time axis by the extension of the straight line of the maximum-slope portion. Examining Fig. 1, it can be seen that for the 12/8 steel the maximum slope is placed in the final stage of

Fig.4. Measured data and tolerance interval for exponential equations Figures 4 and 5 present the measured results for all three specimens, the characteristic curve for the mean value and the 99% tolerance intervals. The superior limit is presented for the weakest specimen (H1 in our case) whiles the inferior limit is computed for the strongest specimen (H2 in our case). The tolerance interval is not symmetric because the equation for H1 and H2 are not identical. For both regression 14

Mircea Octavian Popoviciu, Ilare Bordeasu: Proposed Model for Cavitation Erosion Test Results Presentation; Machine Design, Vol.5(2013) No.1, ISSN 1821-1259; pp. 11-16

tests. To eliminate the influence of the regression curve, the used procedure was: obtaining the equations for the regression of straight lines passing through the last three points and computing the nominal incubation time as the rate between the regression coefficients. The values obtained for these two approximations are presented in table 6 together with other important figures. To obtain the erosion threshold time we use the three types of regression equation exponential, fourth degree and second degree polynomials, the last one obtained in a previous work [4]. The results are presented in Table 6. The value of nominal incubation time must be smaller than the erosion threshold time. As it can be seen from table 6 this do not happen every time. Upon our opinion the nominal incubation time is not a very reliable indicator of the erosion process. The values of the erosion threshold time depend on the regression equation adopted. Table 6. Nominal Incubation Time and Erosion Threshold Time Specime NIT ETTS ETTF ETTE
n 1 2 3 m hours 0.48 0.72 0.34 0.69 hours hours hours

As a consequence, the researches expenses increased exponential with the total exposure time. In many cases the researchers operating with high quality steel renounce to specify the test time for reaching the 50 or 100 m mean depth. As an example in the presented researches by Yeng-Min Chen [5] the total exposure time was taken 180 minutes (3 hours). The use of regression curves offers the possibility to obtain by extrapolation the time values needed for great depth of penetration. On the other hand, the correct mathematical correlation between x and h, established through physical considerations is not known and consequently the extrapolation of the regression curves across the tested domain is not recommended. Neglecting those recommendation, in Figure 7 is presented the extrapolation of the regression curves till x=20 hours for three regressions (second and fourth degree polynomials and an exponential one). Details for the second degree polynomial were presented in a previous paper [3].

0.419 0.547 0.444 0.464

0.523 0.490 0.527 0.568

0.519 0.578 0.565 0.556

It can be seen that the values for the fourth degree polynomial and the exponential regression are enough close. The second degree polynomial gives greater differences.

7. EXTENDED EROSION
The G32 Standard recommends determining the time at which the mean erosion depth reaches 50, 100, and if possible 200 m. Because the tested stainless steel has very good resistance, the extended test time is expected to be very long. On the other hand, a component of the test facility (the horn) is subjected to high fatigue stresses. Although the materials used for manufacturing the horn possesses high fatigue resistance, after some testing cycles occur fissures and the horn must be replaced. In Figure 7 is presented one cracked horn.

Fig.7. Great Extension of Regression Curves

Fig.8. Small Extension of Regression Curves

Fig.6 Cracked horn

It is easy to observe that for MDE=200 m enormous differences occur between those three curves, even if for small extensions of the curves (until 3.3 hours) all the used regression equations approximates well the experimental data, as can be seen in Figure 8. To determine the most favorable regression equation, at least for one specimen, the tests must be continued till 10 hours, perhaps even more. In Table 7 there are presented the numerical values obtained for different equations. There are very great differences even for 50 m MDE. 15

Mircea Octavian Popoviciu, Ilare Bordeasu: Proposed Model for Cavitation Erosion Test Results Presentation; Machine Design, Vol.5(2013) No.1, ISSN 1821-1259; pp. 11-16

Table 7. Numerical values if the curves are extended till 50, 100 and 200 m EES 50 MU 1 2 3 m h 6.63 6.30 6.84 6.57 EEF 50 h 5.33 5.06 5.57 5.36 EEE 50 h 10.05 10.30 10.30 10.17 EES 100 h 10.02 9.22 10.29 9.80 EEF 100 h 6.33 6.13 6.67 6.40 EEE 100 h 20.1 20.6 20.6 20.34 EES 200 h 14.88 13.36 15.21 14.40 EEF 200 h 7.37 7.21 7.82 7.46 EEE 200 h 40.20 41.17 41.17 40.66

MU-measuring units; 1,2,3,m specimens, EEE 100- extended erosion time necessary for a mean depth erosion of 100 m and exponential regression (S to second degree and F to fourth degree polynomial regressions).

8. RECOMMENDATION FOR CAVITATION EROSION TEST PRESENTATION

Table containing the differences between the employed test facility and the G32-10 Standard. Information about the tested material (chemical composition and principal mechanical properties) and the conditions of the specimen exposed surface. Table containing the final test results (exposure time, mass loss and mean depth erosion). Plotted results for cumulative mean depth erosion (micrometers) against exposure time (hours) as well as plotted results for normalized MDE. Proposed regression equation and the resulted standard estimation error. Table containing erosion threshold time computed with the chosen regression equation and the nominal incubation time. The extended erosion experimentally obtained at least for a MDE of 50 micrometers.

REFERENCES
[1] *** ASTM G32 10 (2010). Standard Test Method for Cavitation Erosion Using Vibratory Apparatus , [2] Bordeasu, I.; Popoviciu, M.; Patrascoiu, C-tin.; Blsoiu. V. (2004). An Analytical Model for the Cavitation Erosion Characteristic Curves, Scientific Bulletin Politehnica University of Timisoara, Transaction of Mechanics, Tom 49 (63), p.253-258, ISSN:1224-6077 [3] Bordeasu, I. (2006) Eroziunea cavitaional a materialelor, Editura Politehnica, ISBN: (10)973625-278-7; (13) 978-973-625-278-5, Timioara [4] Popoviciu, M. O.; Bordeasu, I. (2011), Reappraisal of cavitation Erosion Test Results. Second Degree Polynomial Regression , Autumn Conference of the Academy of Romanian Scientists , September 8-10, Mioveni, Romania [5] Chen Y-M.; Tessier, J-J.; Caze, D. (2008). Cavitation Erosion Test for ASTM G32 Method Revision, Cavitation Work Shop , Grenoble, March 2011 [6] Bordeasu, I; Popoviciu, M.O.; Novac, D. (2012). Machine Design, Monograph University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Technical Sciences, vol. 4, Nr. 2, pp.103106, ISSN 1821-1259

9. CONCLUSIONS
1. Comparing the tested stainless steel with the OH12NDL steel it results that the 12/8 steel has very good cavitation erosion qualities. 2. Both the values of the correlation coefficients and the values of the standard error of deviation confirm that the fourth degree polynomial and the exponential equation are suited for estimating the measured data. 3. For a small extrapolation (under maximum 33.3 hours) the obtained MDE are enough close for the used regression equations. 4. For a greater extrapolation (over 3.3 hours) the MDE differences are very great. At least for one specimen the tests must be continued till 10 hours. In this way we can obtain information upon the best regression equation. 5. The erosion threshold time and the nominal incubation time have relatively close values. For the tested steel, those parameters do not give important additional information. 16