UGC Approved Journal no 63975(19)

ISSN: 2349-5162 | ESTD Year : 2014
Call for Paper
Volume 11 | Issue 4 | April 2024

JETIREXPLORE- Search Thousands of research papers



WhatsApp Contact
Click Here

Published in:

Volume 6 Issue 5
May-2019
eISSN: 2349-5162

UGC and ISSN approved 7.95 impact factor UGC Approved Journal no 63975

7.95 impact factor calculated by Google scholar

Unique Identifier

Published Paper ID:
JETIRCW06091


Registration ID:
216597

Page Number

468-476

Share This Article


Jetir RMS

Title

INVESTIGATION OF EROSION AND PRESSURE FOR DIRECT AND INDIRECT ACOUSTIC CAVITATION TESTING

Abstract

In the present work, investigation for erosion and pressure by direct and indirect vibratory cavitation testing of the austenitic stainless steel 316 has been performed. Both Specimens are exposed for cavitation erosion on vibratory cavitation apparatus (probe sonicator) of frequency 20 kHz at amplitude 60µm for 180 minutes. The surfaces of the fractured specimens are examined with scanning electron microscopy and surface profilometer. For the acoustic pressure computation, ANSYS 19.2 has been utilised to model and simulate the actual experimental conditions in harmonic response module, in addition, the ACT (ANSYS Customization Toolkit) of ExtAcoustic and ExtPiezo has been used. Cumulative volume loss in direct vibratory cavitation testing is found to be three times more as compared to indirect vibratory cavitation testing. An SEM images reveals that deep craters and excessive pits are formed in case of specimens are tested via direct vibratory cavitation method. Measured Rq values are 3.18µm and 2.83 µm in direct and indirect vibratory cavitation testing, respectively. Higher Rq value confirmed that more severe fracture occurred on specimens tested with the direct method. More negative acoustic pressure in direct method (320210 pa) validate the reason for higher damage, less probability of bubbles escape, and more microjets formation as compared to the indirect method (74964 pa). The negative acoustic pressure in the direct method is approx. 4 times more than in an indirect method.

Key Words

ANSYS 19.2, ASTM G32-16, Acoustic Pressure, Cavitation Erosion, Optical Micrographs, Volume Loss

Cite This Article

"INVESTIGATION OF EROSION AND PRESSURE FOR DIRECT AND INDIRECT ACOUSTIC CAVITATION TESTING", International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (www.jetir.org), ISSN:2349-5162, Vol.6, Issue 5, page no.468-476, May 2019, Available :http://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIRCW06091.pdf

ISSN


2349-5162 | Impact Factor 7.95 Calculate by Google Scholar

An International Scholarly Open Access Journal, Peer-Reviewed, Refereed Journal Impact Factor 7.95 Calculate by Google Scholar and Semantic Scholar | AI-Powered Research Tool, Multidisciplinary, Monthly, Multilanguage Journal Indexing in All Major Database & Metadata, Citation Generator

Cite This Article

"INVESTIGATION OF EROSION AND PRESSURE FOR DIRECT AND INDIRECT ACOUSTIC CAVITATION TESTING", International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (www.jetir.org | UGC and issn Approved), ISSN:2349-5162, Vol.6, Issue 5, page no. pp468-476, May 2019, Available at : http://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIRCW06091.pdf

Publication Details

Published Paper ID: JETIRCW06091
Registration ID: 216597
Published In: Volume 6 | Issue 5 | Year May-2019
DOI (Digital Object Identifier): http://doi.one/10.1729/Journal.23133
Page No: 468-476
Country: -, -, - .
Area: Engineering
ISSN Number: 2349-5162
Publisher: IJ Publication


Preview This Article


Downlaod

Click here for Article Preview

Download PDF

Downloads

0003107

Print This Page

Current Call For Paper

Jetir RMS