Wear 301 (2013) 467–476

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Wear
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wear

A study of cavitation erosion on engineering materials

J.R. Laguna-Camacho a,n, R. Lewis b, M. Vite-Torres c, J.V. Méndez-Méndez d
a
Universidad Veracruzana, Faculty of Electric and Mechanical Engineering, Avenue Venustiano Carranza S/N, Col. Revolución, C.P. 93390, Poza Rica, Veracruz, México
b
University of Sheffield, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Mappin Street, Sheffield S13JD, UK
c
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Tribology Group, SEPI-ESIME-IPN, UZ Edificio 5, Tercerpiso, Avenue IPN S/N, Col. Lindavista, C.P. 07738, México
City, D.F., México
d
Centro de Nanociencias y Micro y Nanotecnologı́as, Unidad Profesional ‘‘Adolfo López Mateos’’, IPN, Luis Enrique Erro S/N, Zacatenco, C.P. 07738, México
City, D.F., México

a r t i c l e i n f o abstract

Article history: In this study, cavitation erosion tests were conducted on different materials such as pure aluminium (99%
Received 31 August 2012 aluminium) and 1045 steel which were used as ‘‘vibratory’’ specimens, whereas untreated 6082 aluminium
Received in revised form alloy, 304 stainless steel and 4340 steel were used as ‘‘stationary’’ specimens. A first set of tests was
9 November 2012
conducted using only tap water where a lower wear rate was observed. On the other hand, a second set of
Accepted 12 November 2012
Available online 10 December 2012
tests was carried out adding silicon carbide particles to the tap water which led to increase of the erosion
wear rate. It helped to evaluate the performance of all the tested materials at different testing conditions.
Keywords: High speed camera was used to analyse the bubble formation in the radiating surface of the horn made of
Cavitation erosion 2024 aluminium alloy. In these videos, it was possible to observe that the bubble formation was similar to the
Bubble formation
cone-like bubble structure (CBS) observed in other cavitation studies. Additionally, high speed videos were
Particles abrasives
obtained as abrasive particles were used to conduct the tests. In these, it was possible to observe how
Abrasive wear
abrasive particles were moving along the two surfaces, staying in the clearance to cause higher wear damage
on both surfaces. The ‘‘stationary’’ specimen was located at a 1 mm distance with respect to the position of
the ‘‘vibratory’’ specimen which was attached to the radiating surface. Optical microscopy was used to
identify the wear mechanisms which were characterized by a pitting action when only tap water was used
whereas some scratches and irregular indentations similar to those observed in abrasive wear were seen on
the surfaces with abrasive particles.
& 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Cavitation erosion is a process of the formation and rapid
collapse of bubbles where there is a considerable local reduction
in the pressure. Several authors have carried out tests based on
ASTM G-32 (standard test method for cavitation erosion using
vibratory apparatus) to find the resistance of materials in a
cavitation erosion process [1–8]. Some of the most demanding
applications of materials occur in hydraulic machinery such as
valves, seals, bearing surfaces and impellers that operate in
corrosive waters under cavitating conditions [9–11].
The ultrasonic vibration device normally has components such
as generator, amplifier, transducer, horn, a beaker to hold the test
liquid and sometimes a temperature controller bath. There are
two modes of direct cavitation, and the first is where tests are
conducted with the specimen attached to the horn. On the other
hand, some tests have been conducted situating the specimen at
different distances of around 0.1–1 mm, to the opposite vibrating
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ52 782 82 38143.
E-mail address: juanrlaguna@hotmail.com (J.R. Laguna-Camacho).
horn tip, which is called indirect cavitation. It has been a good and
reliable test device to rank the resistance of the materials exposed
to a cavitation erosion process.
In respect to some previous cavitation erosion studies, Zhou
and Hammitt [12] conducted vibratory cavitation erosion tests on
AISI-SAE 1018 carbon steel in tap water and in four mild aqueous
solutions of CaCO3, CaO, NaHCO3 and NaOH. In this particular
study, a high weight loss (mgf) in the first 50 min was obtained
using tap water but this trend changed considerably as the test
time was increased. After 150 min, the higher weight loss was
reached employing NaOH solution whereas the lowest cavitation
rate was seen using tap water. Also, the results obtained indicated
that there were three distinguishable damage regions for all
cavitated surfaces, generally undamaged rim, central heavily
damaged region and a transition region. The wear mechanisms
identified were cracks and also plastic deformation (single blow
craters), particularly in the central damage region.
Additionally, Chiu et al. [13] conducted a study on the cavita-
tion erosion resistance of AISI 316L stainless steel laser surface-
modified with NiTi. In this particular case, the wear mechanisms
identified in the laser treated samples were cracks of erosion on
the damaged surfaces. The laser surface modification of AISI 316L

0043-1648/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2012.11.026
468 J.R. Laguna-Camacho et al. / Wear 301 (2013) 467–476

with NiTi resulted in a large increase in the cavitation erosion 2. Experimental details
resistance. It is obvious that both high hardness and high
elasticity of the NiTi layer would contribute to high cavitation 2.1. Apparatus details
erosion resistance. In summary, the difference in cavitation
erosion resistance for different types of tested samples (316, Cavitation erosion tests were performed using an ultrasonic
316L modified with NiTi, and NiTi plate) could be attributed to apparatus, as shown in Fig. 1; it is based on the rig presented in
the difference in indentation properties (elasticity and hardness), ASTM G32-06 [15]. The apparatus was composed of an electrical
with elasticity playing a more important role. generator, which converted the kinetic energy to electrical
Haosheng et al. [14] carried out cavitation erosion tests using the energy. This power signal was increased by an amplifier since
vibration cavitation apparatus. The experimentation was performed
with suspensions containing microparticles with the same size and
different shapes. The particles that were put into de-ionized water
to form the suspensions were spherical and angular SiO2 particle. 64 M8
The mean diameter of spherical particles was 5.070.5 mm, while 32 32
the size of irregular particles was 5.071.0 mm. The surface testing

10
results indicated that the suspensions containing particles caused

M10

Ø16
Ø20
more severe erosion than suspensions without particles and suspen-

6
sion containing angular particles caused higher erosion than the

M8
10 R1 10 Ø16
suspension containing spherical particles.
In this study, cavitation erosion tests on different materials
Fig. 2. (a) Horn and (b) vibratory specimen.
such as pure aluminium and 1045 steel used as ‘‘vibratory
specimens’’ and untreated aluminium alloy 6082, stainless steel
304 and 4340 steel used as ‘‘stationary specimens’’ were con-
ducted. In this particular case, the cavitation erosion resistance of
all the tested materials and their behaviour against this wear
process was evaluated. Tests using abrasive particles of silicon Horn
carbide (SiC) with a size of 75 mm mixed with tap water and also
tests with only tap water were carried out and the results have
been compared.

Amplifier Bubbles
Acoustic
Streamers
Generator
Transducer

Bubbles

Horn

Vibratory Specimen
Clearance
Horn
Stationary Specimen
Beaker
Support - Specimen Holder

Vibratory
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the ultrasonic equipment.
Specimen

Table 1
Mechanical properties of materials.
Acoustic
Streamers
Vickers Roughness Beaker
Specimen Material micro-hardness (Ra, mm)
(100 g)
Bubbles
Vibratory 1045 Steel 214 0.865
Aluminium 99 0.480
Stationary Stainless steel 304 277 1.003
4340 Steel 273 0.615
Aluminium alloy 6082 161 0.530 Fig. 3. Bubbles formation: (a) cavitation process with a vibratory specimen, and
(b) schematic diagram.
 J.R. Laguna-Camacho et al. / Wear 301 (2013) 467–476 469

the frequency used in the tests was very high (26.5 kHz).
Preliminary tests were carried out and better performance of
the apparatus was observed when this frequency was used to
conduct the tests. Additionally, a transducer converted the high
frequency electrical energy into mechanical vibrations that were
transmitted through an energy-focusing device, in this particular
case a horn made of 2024 aluminium, which was screwed to the
transducer. This constant transmission allowed the horn to
vibrate at high frequency, generating an excitation in the liquid
leading to bubble generation in the clearance.
During the tests, specimens of two different materials were
attached at the tip of the horn. These were named ‘‘vibratory
specimens’’. In addition, ‘‘stationary specimens’’ held by a specimen
holder were placed at a 1 mm nominal distance, as observed in Fig. 1.
A horn made of a special aluminium alloy 2024 was employed to
transmit the mechanical vibrations to the specimen attached to
this. The dimensions of the horn and the specimens attached to this
are shown in Fig. 2(a and b), respectively. The horn was designed
according to previous studies shown in the literature [15–17].
The stationary specimens were untreated 6082 aluminium alloy,
stainless steel 304 and 4340 steel. On the other hand, the vibratory
samples were pure aluminium and 1045 steel. The stationary
specimens were located at 1 mm distance with respect to the
position of the vibratory specimen. These specimens were mounted
at the tip of an exponential oscillator (horn) and immersed to a
12 mm depth from the liquid surface. The horn and the specimen
attached had a sinusoidal motion during the tests. This cyclic motion
led to decrease of the pressure in the system inflicting bubbles
formation that collapsed and attacked the specimen surface.

2.2. Experimental procedure

Microjets
The test materials used as vibratory specimens were pure
aluminium and 1045 steel. Untreated aluminium alloy 6082,
stainless steel 304 and 4340 steel were used as stationary speci-
mens. Table 1 presents the hardness and roughness of the tested Bubble
Particles
materials. The hardness was measured by using a Hardness Testing
Shock waves
Machine (Mitutoyo), Model HM-101, whereas the roughness was
obtained by a Profilometer. The test surface of each specimen was
ground by a SiC emery paper with 800 grade. The stationary 25° 50° 75° 90° 70° 60° 25°
specimen had the following dimensions, 25 mm  27 mm and
5 mm in thickness, whereas the vibratory specimen had a round
Specimen
shape with a diameter of 16 mm. The test temperature was varied
between 25 1C (in the start) and 35 1C (during and at the end of
the test). Fig. 5. Micro-jet exciting abrasive particles.

Vibratring Tool
Horn
Impact Direction

Abrasive Abrasive
Particles Particles

Horn Vibratring Tool

Stationary Impact Direction
specimen

Vibratory
Specimen Acoustic
Streamers
Abrasive
Particles
Abrasive particles

Fig. 4. High speed videos: (a) clearance 1 mm, (b) schematic diagram at 1 mm, (c) particles pushed away, and (d) particles impacting the surface at different impact angles.
470 J.R. Laguna-Camacho et al. / Wear 301 (2013) 467–476

Vibratory Pure aluminium Vibratory 1045 Steel

6082 Al Alloy

Ø = 12 mm Ø = 6 mm
Stainless steel 304

4340 steel

Fig. 6. Cavitation erosion damage on vibratory and stationary specimens.

Pitting action

Corrosion Damage

Fig. 7. Wear damage on vibratory specimens, (a) Aluminium before tests, (b) Aluminium after 80 min, (c) 1045 steel before tests, and (c) 1045 steel after 80 min.
 J.R. Laguna-Camacho et al. / Wear 301 (2013) 467–476 471

The vibration frequency and the peak-to-peak amplitude were
26.5 kHz and 3.5 V, respectively. The specimens were subjected to
a series of tests using tap water and abrasives particles (silicon
carbide (SiC)) that were placed in the clearance formed between
the two specimens. The amount of abrasive powder used was 1 g
in every test. It was spread evenly on the specimen surface. The
abrasive particle size used was 75 mm. The abrasive hardness was
2100–2600 HV. The testing time was 80 min, although the speci-
men was removed every 20 min to measure the mass lost. The
specimen was removed and cleaned by an ultrasonic cleaning
device after each test. Photographs of the specimen surfaces were
taken before and after testing by using optical microscopy.
3. High velocity videos
3.1. Bubble formation
The bubble formation during the cavitation erosion process is a
significant parameter since it determines the amount of physical
damage on the surface of the testing material. It is because these
collapsed rapidly as the outside pressure of the surrounding fluid
becomes stronger than the inside pressure of the bubble, which led to
the implosion automatically. The bubbles explode asymmetrically in
such a way that the adjacent liquid rushes to fill the hollow forming a
liquid micro-jet as observed in other cavitation studies [18].
The ultrasound generates mechanical vibrations that are
transmitted as sound waves in the fluid. These contribute to the
fluid acceleration and thus give higher outward pressures leading
to increase of the amount of bubble implosions on the material
surface. Fig. 3(a) shows a high speed video where it is possible to
observe a bubble formation similar to that observed in the
process of cone-like bubble structure in other cavitation studies
[19,20]. It started at the radiating surface where streamers were
created. Then, bubbles moved away from the surface and self-
organized. The streamers are not stable and fluctuate in space.
They pass round the axial zone, which seems to repulse the
streamers in the vicinity of the surface. This effect was seen in all
the vibratory specimens; however, it showed a higher intensity
when pure aluminium was used as vibratory specimen.

Pitting action

Pit Clusters

Pitting action

Fig. 8. Damage on stationary specimens: (a) 6082 aluminium alloy before tests, (b) 6082 aluminium alloy after 80 min, (c) stainless steel 304 before test, (d) stainless steel
304 after 80 min against aluminium, (e) 4340 steel before tests, and (f) 4340 steel after 80 min against aluminium.
472 J.R. Laguna-Camacho et al. / Wear 301 (2013) 467–476

High speed videos were also obtained as abrasive particles
were used to conduct the cavitation erosion tests. In these, it is
possible to observe how abrasive particles (see Fig. 4(a–d) were
moving along the two surfaces causing pronounced wear damage
on the surfaces similar to that observed in abrasive wear.
Fig. 5 shows how the abrasive particles could impact on the
surface at different impact angles, when bubbles are not sepa-
rated from the radiating surface. Bubble collapse is reached due to
a higher external pressure, which caused micro-jets to be formed.
These can lead to chaotic motion of the abrasive particles which
causes severe wear damage.
4. Results
4.1. Tests using only tap water
Tests were carried out using only tap water. These were
conducted under the following testing conditions: 26.5 kHz fre-
quency, the stationary specimens were 6082 aluminium alloy,
stainless steel 304 and 4340 steel and the vibratory samples were
pure aluminium and 1045 steel, a 1 mm clearance and a testing
time of 80 min were used. Fig. 6 exhibits a comparison of the
wear damage area in stationary specimens using two different
vibratory specimens. The cavitation damage was significant on
6082 aluminium alloy whereas it was hardly observed on stain-
less steel 304 and 4340 steel. In respect to the last material, it is
assumed that the excitation of the liquid led to acceleration of the
corrosion damage.
Photographs shown in Figs. 7 and 8 present the wear damage
incurred on vibratory and stationary specimens, respectively.
Fig. 7 exhibits the damage produced in vibratory specimens, pure
aluminium and 1045 steel. In respect to aluminium, the damage
is described by an intense pitting which is characterized by a
rougher surface. It is typical of cavitation erosion damage as
observed in previous studies [21,22]. It could be produced by the
continuous impact of the micro-jets formed after the collapse of the
small bubbles and also due to the acoustic streamers caused by the
bubble formation as observed in high speed videos (see Figs. 3 and
4). In respect to 1045 steel, pitting is also observed, accompanied by
corrosion damage. It is characterized by thermal pits with an
influence area around them. It could be due to a thermal effect,
which is inflicted due to the temperature of the bubbles at the
collapsing moment reaching hundreds of centigrade as seen in

Vibratory Pure aluminium Vibratory 1045 Steel

6082 Al Alloy

Ø = 14 mm Ø = 14 mm

Stainless steel 304

Ø = 11 mm Ø = 18 mm

4340 steel

Ø = 13 mm Ø = 13 mm

Fig. 9. Erosion damage caused by abrasive particles.

 J.R. Laguna-Camacho et al. / Wear 301 (2013) 467–476 473

Irregular scratches

Wear debris

Grooves

Craters

Fig. 10. Damage on vibratory specimens: (a) aluminium before tests, (b) Aluminium after 80 min, (c) 1045 steel before tests, and (d) 1045 steel after 80 min.

Rough surface

Parallel Grooves

Scratch crossing the

specimen surface

Fig. 11. Damage on stationary specimens: (a) stationary aluminium alloy 6082 before tests, (b) aluminium alloy after 80 min against pure aluminium, and (d) aluminium
alloy after 80 min against mild steel.

previous studies [23]. This thermal effect reduces the strength of
the metal surface causing higher damage.
In Fig. 8(a–f), it is possible to observe the stationary specimens
after being exposed to 80 min against pure aluminium. The
material that exhibits the highest erosion resistance was stainless
steel 304 whereas untreated 6082 aluminium alloy showed very
poor erosion resistance. In this particular case, the wear damage
was characterized by an intense pitting, generating a darker region.
In all of the cases, the damage rate was increased in the stationary
specimens as pure aluminum was used as a ‘‘vibratory’’ specimen.
It is assumed that it was caused due to the aluminium specimen
producing a higher vibration amplitude at the tip of the horn
compared to those produced for 1045 steel. Pit sizes between 20
and 30 mm were found in the aluminium alloy surface (see Fig. 8b).
474 J.R. Laguna-Camacho et al. / Wear 301 (2013) 467–476
Fig. 12. (a) Stainless steel before tests, (b) stainless steel against vibratory Al after 80 min, (c) 4340 steel before tests, and (d) 4340 against vibratory Al after 80 min.
The damage incurred in stationary specimens such as stainless
steel 304 and 4340 steel is shown in Fig. 8(d and f), respectively.
The wear damage in these two materials is mainly characterized
by pit clusters and pits located in random positions on the surface
as pure water was used to conduct the tests. It confirmed the
higher wear resistance to cavitation erosion of these two materi-
als, stainless steel 304 and 4340.
4.2. Tests using abrasive particles
Tests were conducted using silicon carbide (SiC) with a particle
size of 75 mm. In Fig. 9, it is possible to observe the damage in
stationary specimens after 80 min. The eroded damage area
showed a nearly circular shape, which can be observed in the
hidden lines. In this particular case, the abrasive particles accel-
erated the damage inflicted on the testing materials. The wear
area was measured and the results are presented in photographs
for stationary and vibratory specimens.
Photographs shown in Figs. 10 and 11 present the wear damage
on vibratory and stationary specimens as abrasive particles were
used to conduct the tests. In Fig. 10, it is possible to observe the
vibratory specimens before and after 80 min. Here, the damage on
the surfaces is characterized by a combination of small pits but also
by irregular scratches similar to those observed commonly in
abrasive wear [24–26]. It is assumed that single abrasive particles
slid along the surface after impact at different incident angles on the
surfaces. In respect to mild steel (Fig. 10(c and d), a large number of
craters are observed on the surface. In this particular case, abrasive
particle impacted the surface at higher impact angles, near or at 901.
Specimens that were subjected to the interaction with abrasive
particles presented less roughened surfaces compared to those that
were damaged by the direct collapse of small bubbles.
In Fig. 11, it is possible to observe the stationary specimens
after 80 min. As observed in specimens using only tap water, the
wear damage is characterized by an intense pitting, but also in
this particular case by irregular scratches crossing the specimen
surface and parallel grooves. However, the eroded surfaces
Scratches
and pits on
the surface
Craters
Scratch crossing the
specimen surface
presented finer surfaces than those observed in the first tests
(see Fig. 7). It is assumed that this damage is produced by the
chaotic motion of single abrasive particles trapped in the 1 mm
clearance. These particles gained high velocities under the action
of the streamers produced by the bubbles and impacted the
surface at different impingement angles.
The eroded surfaces of stainless steel 304 and 4340 steel
against vibratory aluminium are shown in Fig. 12. Vibratory
aluminium inflicted higher wear damage in all of the stationary
specimens. Here, the wear damage is characterized by an intense
pitting and a few scratches located in random positions.
5. Results
5.1. Stationary specimens
The cavitation erosion results using as stationary specimens,
6082 aluminium alloy, stainless steel 304 and 4340 steel, in both
cases, tests using abrasives particles and with only tap water are
presented in Fig. 13. The testing time was 80 min. However, the
specimens were removed every 20 min to measure the mass loss.
Fig. 13(a and b) shows the wear damage caused as abrasive
particles were used to conduct the tests and without particles,
respectively. Here, it is possible to observe that the mass loss
values obtained with abrasive particles were higher than those
observed without particles. The 6082 aluminium alloy was the
material with a poor performance whereas stainless steel 304
showed a higher cavitation erosion resistance. In this case, pure
aluminium was the vibratory specimen.
On the other hand, the results obtained with 1045 steel used
as vibratory specimen are shown in Fig. 14(a and b). Here, 4340
steel was the material with the higher wear damage and stainless
steel 304 had a better performance. The results using abrasive
particles are higher than those obtained with only tap water. This
behaviour was also observed in the previous erosion cavitation
plots.
 J.R. Laguna-Camacho et al. / Wear 301 (2013) 467–476 475

0.0014
6082 Al Alloy 4340 Steel 304 Stainless steel
Linear (6082 Al Alloy) Linear (4340 Steel) Linear (304 Stainless steel) Abrasive
0.0012
0.0025
Water Abrasive
0.00225 0.001

Mass Loss (g)

0.002
0.00175 0.0008
Abrasive
Mass Loss (g)

0.0015
y = 1E-05x + 0.0002 0.0006
0.00125
0.001 0.0004
0.00075 y = 1E-05x + 0.0001
0.0005 0.0002

0.00025 y = 3E-06x + 0.0004

0
0 304 Stainless steel
6082 Al Alloy 4340 Steel
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Time (min)
0.0014

6082 Al Alloy 4340 Steel 304 Stainless steel 0.0012

Linear (6082 Al Alloy) Linear (4340 Steel) Linear (304 Stainless steel)
Abrasive
0.0025 0.001

Mass Loss (g)

0.00225 Abrasive
0.0008
0.002
0.00175
Mass Loss (g)

0.0006
0.0015 Water
Water
0.00125 0.0004
y = 1E-05x -2E-05
0.001 Abrasive
0.0002
0.00075 y = 1E-05x -0.0003 Water
0.0005 0
0.00025 6082 Al Alloy 4340 Steel 304 Stainless steel
y = 5E-06x -4E-05
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Fig. 15. Comparison between tests with abrasive particles and only water:
Time (min) (a) pure aluminium, and (b) 1045 steel.

Fig. 13. Comparison between stationary specimens: (a) tests with abrasive
particles, and (b) tests with only water. A comparison of the cavitation erosion results obtained in both
conditions, with abrasive particles and only tap water are shown
in Fig. 15(a and b) using pure aluminium and 1045 steel as
vibratory specimens. Here, it is possible to observe higher erosion
4340 Steel 6082 Al Alloy 304 Stainless steel cavitation values due to the effect of adding abrasive particles in
Linear (4340 Steel) Linear (6082 Al Alloy) Linear (304 Stainless steel)
the clearance between vibratory and stationary specimens.
0.0025
0.00225
0.002
0.00175
Mass Loss (g)

0.0015 6. Conclusions
0.00125
y = 8E-06x + 0.0003
0.001 The damage in pure aluminium was characterized by an
0.00075 intense pitting on the surface when only tap water was used to
0.0005 y = 5E-06x + 0.0004 conduct the tests. A slight pitting was observed on mild steel,
0.00025 y = 1E-06x -5E-06 although it was accompanied mostly by corrosion damage exhi-
0 biting thermal pits with an influence area around them.
It was found that the couple of the pure aluminium as the
Time (min)
‘‘vibratory’’ specimen and 6082 aluminum alloy sample as the
‘‘stationary’’ specimen produced higher erosion damage com-
4340 Steel 6082 Al Alloy 304 Stainless steel pared to the other two cases as pure aluminium was acting
Linear (4340 Steel) Linear (6082 Al Alloy) Linear (304 Stainless steel) against stainless steel 304 and 4340 steel.
0.0025 Tests with abrasive particles of silicon carbide (SiC) caused
0.00225 higher mass loss in all the materials compared to the tests when
0.002 only tap water was used.
0.00175
Mass Loss (g)

Specimens attacked with silicon carbide (SiC) particles pre-

0.0015
sented less roughened surfaces compared to those that were
0.00125
damaged only by the direct collapse of small bubbles. In future,
0.001
0.00075 this could be used to produce finer finishes on materials.
y = 5E-06x -1E-05 y = 2E-06x + 8E-05 The damage on the surfaces was characterized by a combina-
0.0005
0.00025 tion of small pits, and also by irregular scratches and grooves
y = 3E-07x + 3E-05
0 similar to those observed commonly in abrasive wear when
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
abrasive particles were employed. It was assumed that the
Time (min)
irregular scratches and grooves on the surface were inflicted by
Fig. 14. Comparison between stationary specimens: (a) tests with abrasive single abrasive particles that slid along the surface after they were
particles, and (b) tests with only water. impacted violently at different incident angles.
476 J.R. Laguna-Camacho et al. / Wear 301 (2013) 467–476
In the case of stationary specimen (stainless steel 304), a slight
damage was observed where the wear was characterized by pit
clusters on the surface when only tap water was used. A different
surface feature was observed due to the action of abrasive
particles. This was characterized by more intensified pitting and
also by some cutting scars.
The damage observed on 4340 steel surface using only tap
water and abrasive particles was characterized by corrosion
regions around the central part of the wear scar.
It is possible to conclude that parameters such as material
testing, time testing, testing clearance, ultrasound features, abra-
sive particle characteristics, solid concentration, liquid character-
istics, impingement angles, and bubble formation play an
important role in the cavitation erosion processes. All of these
variables determine the physical damage on the surfaces.
References
[1] V. Riddei, G. Roch, Cavitation erosion—a survey of the literature 1940–1970,
Wear 23 (1973) 133–136.
[2] A. Karimi, F. Avellan, Comparison of erosion mechanisms in different types of
cavitation, Wear 113 (1986) 305–322.
[3] R.L. Howard, A. Ball, The solid particle and cavitation erosion of titanium
aluminide intermetallic alloys, Wear 186–187 (1995) 123–128.
[4] S. Hattori, E. Nakao, Cavitation erosion mechanisms and quantitative evalua-
tion based on erosion particles, Wear 249 (2002) 839–845.
[5] Y. Iwai, S. Li, Cavitation erosion in waters having different surface tensions,
Wear 254 (2003) 1–9.
[6] X.W. Liu, O. Soderberg, K. Koho, N. Lanska, Y. Ge, A. Sozinov, V.K. Lindroos,
Vibration cavitation behaviour of selected Ni–Mn–Ga alloys, Wear 258 (2005)
1364–1371.
[7] J. Stella, E. Schuller, C. Hebing, O.A. Hamed, M. Pohl, D. Stover, Cavitation
erosion of plasma-sprayed NiTi coatings, Wear 260 (2006) 1020–1027.
[8] D. Drozdz, R.K. Wunderlich, H.J. Fecht, Cavitation erosion behaviour of Zr-
based bulk metallic glasses, Wear 262 (2007) 176–183.
[9] Y. Zhou, J. Gen, He,F.G. Hammitt, Cavitation erosion of cast iron diesel engine
liners, Wear 76 (1982) 329–335.
[10] J. Hengyun, Z. Fengzhen, L. Shiyun, H. Chenzhao, The role of sand particles on
the rapid destruction of the cavitation zone of hydraulic turbines, Wear 112
(1986) 199–205.
[11] R.D. James, Erosion damage in engine bearings, Tribology International 8
(1975) 161–170.
[12] Y. Zhou, F.G. Hammitt, Vibratory cavitation erosion in aqueous solutions,
Wear 87 (1983) 163–171.
[13] K.Y. Chiu, F.T. Cheng, H.C. Man, Cavitation erosion resistance of AISI 316L
stainless steel laser surface-modified with NiTi, vibratory cavitation erosion
in aqueous solutions, Materials Science and Engineering A392 (2005)
348–358.
[14] C. Haosheng, W. Jiadao, C. Darong, Cavitation damages on solid surfaces in
suspensions containing spherical and irregular microparticles, Wear 266
(2009) 345–348.
[15] ASTM standard G32-06 , Standard Test Method for Cavitation Erosion Using
Vibratory Apparatus, PA 19428-2959, United States,(2006).
[16] S. Sherrit, M. Badescu, X. Bao, Y. Bar-Cohen, Z. Chang, Novel horn designs for
power ultrasonics, in: Proceedings of the IEEE Ultrasonics Symposium,
Montreal, Canada, 2004.
[17] Power Ultrasonics, Sonotrode Design and Manufacture Instructions, Available
at: /www.powerultrasonics.com/content/sonotrode-deS (last visited August
2012).
[18] I.M. Hutchings, Tribology: Friction and Wear of Engineering Materials,
Edward Arnold, London, 1992.
[19] K.S.F. Lew, E. Klaseboer, B.C. Khoo, A collapsing bubble-induced micropump:
an experimental study, Sensors and Actuators A133 (2007) 161–172.
[20] A. Moussatov, C. Granger, B. Dubus, Cone-like bubble formation in ultrasonic
cavitation field, Ultrasonics Sonochemistry 10 (2003) 191–195.
[21] B.C.S. Rao, D.H. Buckley, Erosion of aluminium 6061-T6 under cavitation
attack in mineral oil and water, Wear 105 (1985) 171–182.
[22] M. Dular, A. Osterman, Pit clustering in cavitation erosion, Wear 265 (2008)
811–820.
[23] C. Haosheng, L. Jiang, C. Darong, W. Jiadao, Damages on steel surface at the
incubation stage of the vibration cavitation erosion in water, Wear 265
(2008) 692–698.
[24] S. Huang, A. Ihara, H. Watanabe, H. Hashimoto, Effects on solid particle
properties on cavitation erosion in solid–water mixtures, Journal of Fluids
Engineering 118 (1996) 749–755.
[25] Y. Ichida, R. Sato, Y. Morimoto, K. Kobayashi, Material removal mechanisms
in non-contact ultrasonic abrasive machining, Wear 258 (2005) 107–114.
[26] K. Kikuchi, F.G. Hammitt, Effect of separation distance on cavitation erosion
of vibratory and stationary specimens in a vibratory facility, Wear 102 (1985)
211–225.