Sixth International Symposium on Cavitation
CAV2006, Wageningen, The Netherlands, September 2006
INCUBATION TIME AND CAVITATION EROSION RATE
OF WORK-HARDENING MATERIALS
Jean-Pierre FRANC and Michel RIONDET
LEGI, BP 53, 38041 Grenoble Cedex 9, France, Jean-Pierre.Franc@hmg.inpg.fr
ABSTRACT
A phenomenological model for the prediction of
incubation time and erosion rate of ductile materials is
proposed. It is based upon a simplified description of the
erosive potential of the cavitating flow made of three
integral parameters: rate, mean amplitude and mean size
of hydrodynamic impact loads. The limited number of
parameters considered here allows us to derive simple
equations for the prediction of the incubation time and
erosion rate. These equations point out two characteristic
scales for cavitation erosion of ductile materials. The
relevant time scale of the phenomenon is the covering
time (the time necessary for the impacts to cover the
material surface) whereas the pertinent length scale for
ductile materials is the thickness of the hardened layer.
The incubation time is proportional to the covering time
with a multiplicative factor which is strongly dependent
upon flow aggressiveness in terms of the mean amplitude
of impact loads. As for the erosion rate, it is scaled by the
ratio of the depth of hardened layers to the covering time
with still a dependence upon flow aggressiveness. The
model is supported by erosion tests conducted in a
cavitation tunnel at a velocity of 65 m/s on stainless steel
316 L. Flow aggressiveness is characterized from an
analysis of pitting tests. Long duration tests are performed
in order to determine the incubation time and the mean
depth of penetration rate MDPR and validate the
theoretical approach.
1. INTRODUCTION
The evolution of cavitation erosion with the exposure
time shows different periods. Three main stages are
generally distinguished (see e.g. Thiruvengadam 1974,
Hammitt 1979). At the very beginning, the erosion
damage is made of isolated pits which progressively
overlap as the exposure time increases. Usually,
negligible mass loss occurs during this incubation period.
Then, mass loss actually begins and an acceleration
period is observed with a damage rate gradually
increasing up to a maximum. A steady state period with a
constant erosion rate is then expected as long as the flow
pattern remains unchanged.
1
Secondary effects may affect this schematic behavior
and more complicated evolutions are found in the
literature depending in particular upon the test facility
(see e.g. Karimi and Martin 1986). For example, the
steady-state period may be almost inexistent or the
maximum may be followed by a deceleration or even
oscillations of the erosion rate. These effects are generally
due to an interaction between the cavitating flow and the
wall via for instance changes of roughness or wall shape
induced by the erosion itself. They are ignored in the
present paper which focuses on the three basic stages
described above.
This paper is based upon an analysis proposed in
1987 by Karimi and Leo and adapted in 2002 by
Berchiche et al. The method is applicable to ductile
materials which undergo work hardening when exposed
to cavitation.
The starting point of the predictive technique is made
of pitting tests from which the erosive potential of the
cavitating flow is characterized. The measured size and
depth of each pit are considered as the signature of the
collapse of a bubble and used to infer the characteristics
of the original hydrodynamic impact load. Berchiche et
al. (2002) characterized the aggressiveness of the
cavitating flow by a spectrum of impact loads. They
reproduced it numerically a large number of times and by
modeling the material response, they could compute mass
loss as a function of the exposure time. Because of the
wide spectrum of pits, they used a numerical treatment
which gives realistic evolutions in time and space of the
damage but makes difficult a phenomenological analysis.
In order to point out the basic parameters of the
model and their influence mainly on the incubation time
and the steady state erosion rate, the approach has been
re-formulated in a simplified way. The simplification
consists in representing the whole spectrum by a limited
number of integral parameters. Analytical relationships
can then be derived, from which it is much easier to draw
general trends and in particular point out the relevant
length and time scales of the erosion mechanism of
ductile materials.
2. PHENOMENOLOGICAL ANALYSIS
2.1 Erosive Potential
The real cavitating flow comprises a large variety of
vapor structures. When collapsing, each structure is
supposed to generate a load on the wall. A large variety of
impact loads of various sizes and amplitudes is then
generated. The simplification which is made here consists
in characterizing the whole impact load spectrum by a
mean value σ of the amplitude and a mean value S of
the impacted area.
The present model of impact is the simplest one
which can be imagined since the radial distribution of
stress is considered as uniform: stress is equal to σ over
the surface S and zero outside. Moreover, no indication
is given on the time evolution of the applied stress. This
means in particular that the strain rate, which is known to
be high in cavitating flows, is ignored at this step.
Another important parameter with respect to flow
aggressiveness is the number N per unit time and unit
surface area of these impacts. In summary, the
aggressiveness of the cavitating flow is characterized in
this paper by a set of three parameters σ , S and N .
The averaging procedure to represent a complex
spectrum by a unique set of values ( σ , S , N ) is
presented in more detail in section 4.1. The general idea
is to preserve the total energy impacting the wall.
From a purely dimensional viewpoint, a fundamental
characteristic time can be built on the basis of the last two
parameters. It is defined by τ = 1 / NS . From a physical
viewpoint, this time can be interpreted as the covering
time i.e. the time necessary for the surface to be fully
covered exactly once by the cavitation impacts. This
characteristic time plays a major role as shown later.
2.2 Material thresholds
To estimate damage caused to the wall, it is
necessary to compare the mean amplitude of impact loads
σ to specific material characteristics used as thresholds.
In the present paper and in accordance with the initial
version of the model (Karimi and Leo, 1987), we
systematically refer to tensile tests to define these
thresholds using the ordinary yield strength σ Y and
ultimate tensile strength σ U .
More appropriate material tests could certainly be
used to better account for the very specific type of
loading due to bubble collapse. One limitation among
others is that ordinary tensile tests are conducted at a
strain rate several orders of magnitude smaller than that
of cavitation. However, within the same simplified
approach, the high strain rate encountered in cavitation
erosion can be taken into account, to some extent, by
artificially increasing σ Y and σ U with respect to the
values given by a classical tensile test at much smaller
strain rate.
2
In the present paper we have chosen to use a Ludwik
type consolidation relationship between stress σ and
strain ε (figure 1):
σ = σY + K ε n (1)
σ
σU
σ = σY + K ε n
σY
εU ε
Figure 1: Typical stress / strain relationship.
Let us observe that, although equation (1) is strictly
speaking valid only up to the ultimate strength, it will be
extrapolated beyond σ U . This is the basis of the
computation of mass loss rate.
All along this paper, we will take the example of
stainless-steel 316 L which has been used for the
experimental part of this work. Typical values for
SS 316 L are (Berchiche et al. 2002):
⎧σ Y = 400 MPa
⎪σ = 1020 MPa
⎪ U
⎨ (2)
⎪ K = 900 MPa
⎪⎩n = 0.5
The erosion damage depends primarily upon the
mean amplitude σ of the impact loads relatively to the
two previous thresholds. Three cases can happen.
(i) If σ < σ Y , the impacts are supposed to cause no
damage at all, whatever their size and rate may be. The
elastic behavior is dominating.
(ii) If σ lies between σ Y and σ U , successive
impacts cause first the progressive hardening of the
initially virgin material and then its damage after the
work hardening process is completed. This is why an
incubation time is needed before erosion actually starts.
(iii) Finally, if σ > σ U , mass loss appears from the
very beginning of exposure to cavitation. This can be
considered as the limit of cavitating flows of high
aggressiveness. Beyond σ U , severe cavitation damage is
expected.
2.3 Work-hardening
For a virgin material, strain is zero everywhere inside
the material. As it is exposed to bubble collapses, the
successive hydrodynamic impacts lead to a progressive
superficial hardening. The strain profile inside an eroded
sample can be determined from microhardness
measurements on a cross section (Berchiche et al., 2002).
A classical representation of the strain profile inside
the material is (figure 2):
θ
⎡ x⎤
ε ( x ) = ε 0 ⎢1 − ⎥ (3)
⎣ l⎦
where ε 0 is the strain on the surface, x the distance from Equation (6) shows that the thickness l of the
the surface, l the thickness of the hardened layers and θ hardened layer increases as ε 1 / θ . In particular, l is
a shape factor for the strain profile. connected to the maximum value L by:
θ
ε0 ε0 ⎡ l ⎤
material surface ε = (7)
εU ⎢⎣ L ⎥⎦

2.4 Single impact

θ
⎡ x⎤
ε ( x ) = ε 0 ⎢1 − ⎥
⎣ l⎦
l the material when submitted to a single hydrodynamic
x impact ( σ , S ). This energy is assumed to be independent
Figure 2: Typical strain profile inside a material subject
to work-hardening.
The thickness l of the hardened layer progressively
increases with the exposure time and reaches a maximum
(denoted L ) when the work-hardening process is
completed. The surface strain is then εU corresponding
to σ U (cf. figure 1): material is ready to rupture at its
surface.
Typical values of L and θ for stainless-steel 316 L
are (Berchiche et al., 2002):
⎧ L = 200 µm
⎨ (4)
⎩θ = 5
To predict the evolution of l with ε 0 , let us observe
that the strain profile can be considered as simply
translated inside the material as work hardening proceeds.
This is a property of the power-law chosen to describe the
strain profile. In other words, if ε 0 increases up to ε '0
whereas l increases up to l' (figure 3), the new strain
profile is:
θ l ⎡ ε( x )
⎡ x⎤
ε ( x ) = ε '0 ⎢1 − ⎥
⎣ l' ⎦
and we have ε( x ) = ε 0 for x = l' −l , i.e.
(5)
The present approach is based upon energy
considerations. A key concept is the energy absorbed by
of the degree of hardening of the material and is
evaluated from the particular case of a virgin material.
Let us denote by ε 1 the strain on the material surface
resulting from an impact of amplitude σ on the virgin
material (figure 4a). There is a unique correspondence
between σ and ε 1 via the material stress-strain
relationship (1). The ε 1 -variable can then be used instead
of σ . In case σ > σ U , the approach remains valid
provided the stress/strain relationship is extrapolated
beyond σ U .
The material surface behaves as indicated
schematically on figure 4a. The surface strain is ε 1 and
corresponds to the impact load σ . The energy absorbed
per unit volume by the most superficial layer is the area
below the stress/strain curve. As for internal layers, strain
ε ( x ) decreases with distance x from the surface
according to equation (3) and the energy absorbed (which
is still the area below the curve) is smaller for inner layers
than for the most superficial ones (figure 4b).
The total energy absorbed by the material can be
computed as:
⎤
∫ ∫
W ( ε1 ) = ⎢
x =0 ⎢⎣ ε =0
σ dε ⎥ S dx
⎥⎦
(8)

It is given by:
θ
ε0 ⎡ l ⎤ 1/θ
= (6) ⎛ε ⎞ σ Y + β Kε 1n
ε '0 ⎢⎣ l' ⎥⎦ W ( ε 1 ) = ε 1 S L ⎜⎜ 1 ⎟⎟ (9)
⎝ εU ⎠ 1+θ
material surface ε 0 ε '0 ε with
1+θ
β= (10)
( 1 + n )( 1 + θ + nθ )
σ σ
σU σU
σ
l
σY σY

l'
ε1 εU ε ε( x ) εU ε
x (a) (b)
Figure 3: Work hardening progress. Figure 4: Behavior of a virgin material after being loaded
by a hydrodynamic impact of amplitude σ . (a) case of
the superficial layer. (b) case of a layer at depth x.

3
L is the maximum thickness of the hardened layers when thickness L of the hardened layers) and upon the flow
work hardening is complete whereas the quantity aggressiveness σ , S and N . Concerning the last two
1/θ parameters, the incubation period appears to be simply
⎛ε ⎞
L ⎜⎜ 1 ⎟⎟ (11) proportional to the covering time τ = 1 / NS .
⎝ εU ⎠ The dependence with respect to the amplitude of
is the thickness of the hardened layers for a partial impact loads σ is more complicated. When σ
hardening due to the only considered impact σ (cf. approaches σ Y , the incubation time tends to infinity.
equation 7). This is consistent with the assumption that no damage
will occur if the amplitude of impacts is smaller than the
2.5 Incubation period yield strength.
On the other hand, for σ = σ U , one has T = τ . This
As exposure time increases, the material is hardened
means that mass loss is expected to happen after the
and the surface strain progressively increases. After the
material surface has been covered only once. This is quite
first covering of the initially virgin material (i.e. after
understandable from a physical viewpoint. Beyond σ U ,
time τ ), the surface strain is uniformly equal to ε 1 .
the incubation time takes no sense since erosion occurs
After the second covering (time 2τ ), the surface
from the very beginning of exposure.
strain is increased from ε 1 up to a value ε 2 which is
Between σ Y and σ U , the incubation period
deduced from the conservation of energy. Since there has
progressively decreases as flow aggressiveness (i.e. σ )
been two coverings, the flow has discharged into the
increases. As an example, the evolution of the incubation
material the energy 2 W ( ε 1 ) . Moreover, if the surface
period with the mean amplitude of impact loads is
strain is ε 2 , the total energy absorbed by the material is
presented in figure 6 for stainless steel 316 L using the
actually W ( ε 2 ) . The energy balance writes
values given before in (2) and (4). In case the mean
W ( ε 2 ) = 2 W ( ε1 ) . This equation allows the
amplitude of impact loads is only a little bit higher than
determination of the ε 2 -value.
the yield strength i.e. for flows of small aggressiveness,
σ the number of coverings necessary before mass loss
σU happens may be quite large and the incubation time may
be several orders of magnitude larger than the covering
time.
σ
10000
SS 316 L
σY
incubation time T/τ
Non-dimensional
g

g
g

1000
ver in

verin

verin
verin

2 nd co

3 rd co

4 th co
1 st co

100

ε1 ε2 ε3 ε4
Figure 5: Material response during the incubation
period.
The work hardening process is continued between
the second covering (instant 2τ ) and the third one
(instant 3τ ). The surface strain increases up to a ε 3 -
value given by W ( ε 3 ) = 3 W ( ε 1 ) and so on (cf. figure
5).
No mass loss is expected until the surface strain
reaches the ultimate strain εU corresponding to σ U . The
number of coverings necessary to reach this critical point
is n = W ( εU ) / W ( ε 1 ) and the corresponding time is
nτ . This time is precisely the incubation period T
beyond which mass loss is expected. Using equation (9)
together with the stress-strain relationship (1), the
incubation time is given in a non-dimensional form by:
1+θ
T ⎡ σ U − σ Y ⎤ nθ
σY + β ( σU − σY )
=⎢ ⎥ (12)
τ ⎣ σ − σY ⎦ σY + β ( σ − σY )
The incubation period depends upon the material
characteristics σ Y , σ U , n and θ (but not upon the
10
εU ε
1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
yield strength ultimate strength
Non-dimensional amplitude of impact loads
Figure 6: Typical example of the variation of the
incubation period with the amplitude of impact loads σ .
Case of stainless steel 316 L. The values of the material
constants are given in (2) and (4). The abscissa
represents the non-dimensional amplitude of impact loads
defined by ( σ − σ Y ) /( σ U − σ Y ) whereas the ordinate is
the incubation time T made non-dimensional using the
covering time τ.
2.6 Steady-state mass loss rate
After the incubation period, surface strain is
maximum and equal to εU . Any further impact will
cause material removal.
After a further complete covering of the material
surface, strain at surface reaches a value ε ' greater than
εU (cf. figure 7). This ε ' -value is extrapolated beyond
the ultimate tensile strength on the stress-strain

4
relationship. It can be considered as virtual in so far as all layers (which is a feature of the material only) whereas
the layers of the material with a strain greater than εU the characteristic time to be considered is the covering
are indeed assumed to be ruptured and eroded. This ε ' - time τ (which is a feature of the fluid flow). The term in
value is computed, as previously, from an energy balance brackets is a multiplicative factor which depends
which writes: primarily upon flow aggressiveness. It is estimated below
W ( ε' ) = W ( εU ) + W ( ε 1 ) (13) in the case of stainless steel 316 L.
A practical way to compute MDPR is as follows.
σ
From the mean value of the impact load σ , strain ε 1 is
σU computed using the stress/strain relationship and the
corresponding energy W ( ε 1 ) is computed using equation
σ
(9). The energy conservation equation (13) is then solved
in order to determine ε' . Since this equation cannot be
σY solved analytically, we cannot get a fully analytical
equation for MDPR. The mean depth of penetration rate
can then be computed using equation (15).
A typical evolution of the erosion rate with flow
aggressiveness is presented on figure 9, still in the case of
ε1 εU ε' ε stainless steel 316 L. In the limit case σ = σ Y , one has
Figure 7: Material behavior after the incubation period W ( ε 1 ) = 0 , ε ' = εU and then MDPR=0 as expected.
during steady-state erosion. Figure 9 shows that MDPR increases first slowly with σ
around the yield strength and tends to be more or less
Once the new surface strain ε ' is known, the new linear with σ around the ultimate strength.
strain profile inside the material can be computed. Both For σ < σ U , damage is due to fatigue associated to
profiles, just after the incubation period and after a further the accumulation of energy by the material. The present
covering, are compared in figure (8). They are simply approach remains valid for severe cavitation erosion
translated of a length ∆L given by: ( σ > σ U ).
1/θ
∆L⎡ ε' ⎤ 0.5
Non-dimensional erosion rate

=⎢ ⎥ −1 (14) SS 316 L
L ⎣ εU ⎦ 0.4
as explained in section 2.3. Previous equation is a direct
MDPR/(L/τ)

consequence of equation (7). 0.3

initial surface εU ε' ε 0.2

0.1
∆L
0
surface 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
after erosion
yield strength ultimate strength
L Non-dimensional amplitude of impact loads
Figure 9: Typical example of the variation of the mean
depth of penetration rate (MDPR) with the mean
L + ∆L
amplitude of impact loads. Case of stainless steel 316 L
(see (2) and (4) for values of constants). MDPR is made
x
non dimensional using the characteristic erosion rate L/τ
Figure 8: Principle of the computation of mass loss. whereas the non-dimensional amplitude of impact loads
Mass loss is computed by assuming that the material is defined as in figure 6.
cannot sustain a strain greater than the ultimate strain εU
so that thickness ∆L is actually eroded and removed 3. EXPERIMENTS
during time τ. The mean depth of penetration rate is then:
1/θ 3.1 Experimental facility
∆L L ⎡⎢⎛ ε ' ⎞ ⎤
⎥
MDPR = = ⎜ ⎟ − 1 (15)
τ τ ⎢⎜⎝ εU ⎟⎠ ⎥ To support the theoretical approach, erosion tests
⎣ ⎦ were conducted in a cavitation tunnel (figure 10). The
A major outcome of this equation is that the steady facility is designed for a maximum pressure of 40 bars.
state erosion rate MDPR is proportional to L / τ . In other This relatively high pressure provides with high velocities
words, from a dimensional viewpoint, it appears that the and consequently high erosive potential for the cavitating
characteristic length which is pertinent for the flow. This is an essential condition to obtain significant
computation of MDPR is the thickness L of the hardened mass loss within reasonable exposure times and make

5
possible the investigation of the most advanced stages of changing the downstream pressure pd . Cavitation
erosion. number is defined by:
The pump is a KSB centrifugal pump driven by an p − pv
electric motor of 80 kW in power. Maximum flowrate is σ= d (16)
pu − pd
11 l/s. The facility includes a downstream tank of about
The σ -value is chosen equal to 0.9 which leads to a
1 m3. Pressurisation is achieved by means of a bottle
cavity of about 25 mm in mean length. This ensures that
connected to the tank by a pipe of small diameter in order
the zone of maximum erosion which corresponds to
to limit diffusion of nitrogen used for pressurisation.
cavity closure is in an appropriate region of the target.
Liquid is tap water without any special control of
The tests presented in this paper are conducted at a
dissolved gas.
flowrate of 6.25 l/s. The upstream pressure is 21.3 bar
Water temperature is kept constant by means of a
and the pressure drop through the test section given by:
heat exchanger. It is a countercurrent exchanger made of
85 tubes of 11 mm in diameter with a nominal power of 1
pu − pd ≅ pu (17)
80 kW. Tests are conducted at ambient temperature. The 1+σ
rise in temperature after a run of 5 hours is typically of is 11.2 bar at σ = 0.9 . The mean velocity in the 16 mm
the order of 0.5°C. nozzle is 31 m/s. The reference velocity on the cavity
The tunnel is equipped with several transducers to where pressure is assumed to be equal to the vapour
determine the operating conditions: an electromagnetic pressure can be estimated from Bernoulli equation in
flowmeter, a pressure transducer to measure the absolute which the vapour pressure is neglected in comparison to
pressure upstream of the test section pu , a differential the upstream pressure:
pressure transducer to measure the pressure drop through 2 pu
Vc ≅ (18)
the test section and a temperature probe. ρ
For present tests, the reference velocity on the cavity
is Vc = 65.3 m / s .
cavity

Φ 16 nozzle
2.5 mm

eroded target
zone of 19 mm
maximum
erosion 32 mm

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 mm
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4

mm

3.05 µm

13 mm
1.5 mm

Figure 11: Schematic view of the test section and of an

Figure 10: View of the cavitation erosion tunnel.
The test section is about 6 m above the pump in order
to avoid any cavitation of the pump. It is axisymmetric
and made of a nozzle of 16 mm in diameter followed by a
radial divergent of 2.5 mm in thickness (figure 11). Under
cavitating conditions, a cavity is attached to the nozzle
exit whose length can be adjusted by changing the
cavitation number which is obtained in practice by
eroded target. The size of the eroded surface shown is
13 mm x 1.5 mm. The operating conditions are
Vc = 65.3 m / s , pu = 21.3 bar , pd = 10.1 bar , σ = 0.9 .
Test duration: 30 mn.
The target to be eroded is facing the nozzle exit.
Erosion appears in the form of a ring centred on cavity
closure where erosive potential is maximum. Both sides
of the channel are expected to be eroded, but the nozzle is
made of a highly resistant material so that no significant
erosion is observed on the nozzle itself.
Erosion tests are conducted on stainless steel 316 L
free of any corrosion effect in water. Prior to exposure to

6
cavitation, a metallurgical polishing of the specimen
surface is carried out with successive diamond pastes
down to 0.25 µm which ensures a mirror-type polishing.
The effect of roughness on cavitation erosion damage is
not considered in the present investigation.
3.2 Pitting tests
Pitting tests are used here to characterize the erosive
potential of the cavitating flow. The idea of using the
material itself as a kind of transducer to reveal the flow
aggressiveness is classical (see e.g. Knapp et al., 1970).
The procedure consists in considering that each
indentation is the signature of a bubble collapse. In a first
approach, it can reasonably be assumed that pit depth is
representative of maximum load and pit size of the extent
of the loaded area. This is the assumption made in section
4.1 below.
An alternative for characterizing flow aggressiveness
is to use pressure transducers. Li et al. (1986) have shown
that the temporal pressure fluctuations given by a
transducer flush-mounted in the cavitating region is made
of several components. In addition to basic flow noise
and low-frequency fluctuations associated to the global
behaviour of the two-phase region, Li et al. observed high
frequency pulses due to cavitation bubble collapse.
Several investigators (e.g. Nguyen The et al., 1987, Fry,
1989, Okada et al., 1995) have shown that a good
correlation exists between erosion damage and the
number of pulses above a suitable threshold.
However, the quantitative evaluation of pressure load
due to bubble collapse by pressure transducers raises a
few basic difficulties. The very high characteristic
frequency of cavitation pulses requires transducers of
small rise time in order to follow reliably the fast pressure
rise. Very significant progress has been made in this field
by the development of special transducers (Okada et al.,
1995, Momma & Lichtarowicz, 1995). But a major
difficulty remains concerning the size of the sensitive
surface which, although miniaturized, is much bigger than
produced indentations. Even though realistic estimates
can be obtained by dividing the measured load in terms of
force by the area of the indentation (cf. e.g. Momma &
Lichtarowicz, 1995), pressure transducers cannot directly
supply with pressure load. This limitation lead us to
prefer pitting tests to evaluate flow aggressiveness.
Nevertheless, the estimate of pressure load from
indentation characteristics is not straightforward and a
special procedure presented in section 4.1 is needed.
Figure 12 presents a typical view of a pitted surface.
A pitting test can be considered as appropriate if the
degree of pit overlapping is low enough. It is clear that
the response of a ductile material is not the same whether
the impact falls on a virgin part of its surface or an
already pitted area. This is because of the increase in
superficial hardness due to pitting. Since the analysis of
the pitting test presented in section 4.1 is based upon the
assumption that each pit falls on a virgin area, it is of
major importance to limit overlapping in order to obtain
an unbiased estimate of erosive potential.
The degree of overlapping is controlled by the
exposure time and, statistically speaking, it can be
reasonably assumed that it is negligible if the exposure
time is small enough. In practice, it has to be compared to
the covering time introduced in section 2.1. In the case of
figure 12, the covering time is estimated to 88 mn
whereas the exposure time is only 5 mn. It can then be
concluded that overlapping is negligible. Photograph in
figure 12 confirms that, at least qualitatively, overlapping
is only occasional. Provided the exposure time is much
smaller than the covering time, it can be expected that the
analysis of a pitting test to evaluate flow aggressiveness is
independent of exposure time.
The smaller the exposure time, the smaller the pit
number and the less accurate the estimate. Conversely,
the larger the exposure time, the larger the degree of
overlapping. It is then necessary to find a compromise. A
possibility can be to make several pitting tests of rather
short duration and cumulate the data to get a stable
statistics (cf. section 4.1).
Furthermore, it is essential that the exposure time be
sufficiently short so that large portions of the original
surface remains easily detectable between indentations.
This is important for the analysis technique since the
original surface is used as a reference for the
determination of pit depth.
Figure 12: Typical view of the surface after a pitting test.
Operating conditions: Vc = 65.3 m / s , pu = 21.3 bar ,
pd = 10.1 bar , σ = 0.9 , exposure time: 5 mn. The size of
the surface is 2 mm x 4 mm.
Several techniques are available to analyze a pitted
surface. Belahadji et al. (1991) used an interferometric
technique and Fortes Patella et al. (2000) a laser
profilometer. In the present work, we used a Taylor-
Hobson contact-type profilometer with a stylus of tip
radius 2 µm and a vertical maximum resolution of
3.2 nm. The surface is scanned along parallel lines distant
of 1 µm with a resolution of 0.5 µm between two
successive points. For most tests, a surface of 2 mm x
4 mm is scanned.
Treatment of the data starts by subtracting a
polynomial obtained by the least mean square technique.
After several tests, a polynomial of degree 5 was
considered. It proved to satisfactorily remove the mean
shape of the surface often due to large scale machining or

7
polishing defects without altering the shape of pits at both parameters can be considered as independent. In
much smaller scale. other words, large pits are not necessarily deeper and pit
Next step consists in applying a threshold to the profiles are not geometrically similar.
surface in order to define the pit border. For all the
analyses presented here, the threshold was fixed at 5
0.5 µm below the reference surface corresponding to the
original material surface. All pits whose depth is smaller
4
than 0.5 µm are then ignored. This threshold is constant
and independent of the indentation. Its influence on the

Pit depth (µm)

subsequent prediction of incubation time and mass loss 3
rate is discussed in section 4.2. The chosen value of
0.5 µm appears to give a correct description of the pits
(cf. figure 28). Other investigators (Belahadji et al., 1991, 2
Fortes Patella et al., 2000, for instance) consider a pit
dependent threshold often taken as a fraction (typically 1
10%) of maximum pit depth. The influence of the
analysis technique on the estimate of the erosive potential
of the flow and the further estimate of long-term damage 0
has not been investigated. 0 50 100 150 200 250
Pit diameter (µm)
Figure 15: Pit depth versus pit diameter. Each point
represents a pit. The total number of pits is 797.

1,5

1,3
Pit depth (µm)

1,1

Figure 13: 3D view of the pitted surface presented in 0,9

figure 12. The size of the volume shown is 2 mm x 4 mm x
2.8 µm. Same operating conditions as for figure 12. A
polynomial of degree 5 was removed to eliminate large
scale defects.
Each pit is then identified, and its main
characteristics (surface, volume, maximum depth and
mean diameter) are computed. Pit size is defined as the
equivalent diameter of the section of the pit by the plane
x = 0.5 µm . Pit depth is counted from the original
material surface x = 0 and volume is defined as shown in
figure 14.
x =0
depth
0.5 µm
diameter volume
x and probability density functions are shown in figure 18.
Figure 14: Sketch showing the definition of pit depth,
diameter and volume.
Figures 15 and 16 give a representation of the sample
of almost 800 pits analyzed here in a diagram whose
coordinates are pit depth and pit diameter. No correlation
is noticeable between pit depth and pit diameter so that
0,7
0,5
20 30 40 50
Pit diameter (µm)
Figure 16: Same representation as figure 15 but in a
limited range of depth and diameter. No clear correlation
between pit diameter and pit depth is visible.
The distribution of pits as a function of diameter is
shown in figure 17. The smaller the pits, the higher the
pitting rate.
As for the contribution of each class of size to the
damage, it can be estimated by considering the eroded
surface defined here as the total surface of pits for the
considered class of size. The corresponding cumulative
PDF exhibits a maximum for pit diameters around
100 µm. Small pits are many but do not contribute
significantly to the eroded surface because of their small
size. The contribution of large pits is also negligible but
because of their small probability. The existence of a
maximum is then quite understandable. It has also been

8
observed by Belahadji et al. (1991) for pitting tests in a 1 0,01
Venturi.

Cumul. fraction of erod. vol

The conclusion is the same when considering the

PDF of fraction of erod. vol.

eroded volume defined as the total volume of pits for a 0,8 0,008
given class of size. In particular, the PDF of the eroded
volume exhibits a maximum in the same range of size,
0,6 0,006
around 100 µm, as shown in figure 19.
For the prediction of incubation time and mass loss
rate, it is essential that the technique of analysis of pitting 0,4 0,004
tests focuses on the range of pit diameter which
contributes mostly to the damage. In the present case, the
0,2 0,002
contribution of pits smaller than 20 µm was ignored
whereas the largest observed pit was 220 µm in diameter.
0 0
5 0,1 0 50 100 150 200 250
Pit diameter (µm)
Cumul. pit dens. (pits/cm²/s)

4 0,08 Figure 19: Cumulative distribution and probability

PDF of pit density

density functions of the fraction of eroded volume.

3 0,06
Operating conditions: Vc = 65.3 m / s , pu = 21.3 bar ,
pd = 10.1 bar , σ = 0.9 , total number of pits: 797,
analyzed surface: 59.9 mm²).
2 0,04
3.3 Mass loss tests

1 0,02 A series of mass loss tests with increasing exposure

times have been conducted on a SS 316 L target for the
same operating conditions as the pitting tests presented in
0 0
section 3.2.
0 50 100 150 200 250
Figure 20 presents a view of the material surface
Pit diameter (µm)
after the maximum exposure time of 104 h. Damage is
Figure 17: Cumulative distribution and probability concentrated on a ring corresponding to the closure
density functions of pit density per unit time and unit region of the cavity with almost no damage inside the
surface area. Operating conditions: Vc = 65.3 m / s , cavity. On the whole, damage appears well enough
pu = 21.3 bar , pd = 10.1 bar , σ = 0.9 , total number of axisymmetric despite a few undulations in the upper left
pits: 797, analyzed surface: 59.9 mm²). quarter. The measurements were then concentrated on the
three other quarters free of defects.
1 0,01
PDF of fraction of erod. surf.
Cumul. fraction of erod. surf

0,8 0,008

0,6 0,006

0,4 0,004

0,2 0,002

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Pit diameter (µm)
Figure 20: Photograph of an eroded sample after an
Figure 18: Cumulative distribution and probability exposure time of 104 h. The external diameter of the
density functions of the fraction of eroded surface. sample is 100 mm. Operating conditions: Vc = 65.3 m / s ,
Operating conditions: Vc = 65.3 m / s , pu = 21.3 bar , pu = 21.3 bar , pd = 10.1 bar , σ = 0.9 .
pd = 10.1 bar , σ = 0.9 , total number of pits: 797,
analyzed surface: 59.9 mm²). The mass loss test was bracketed by two pitting tests
in order to detect any possible alteration in flow

9
aggressiveness during the long duration test. No
significant variation was observed between both pitting
tests so that it can be considered that flow aggressiveness
has remained invariable all along the mass loss test. This
results from (i) a negligible change in geometry since the
maximum depth of penetration was 70 µm after 104 h,
which is negligible in comparison with the 2.5 mm gap
(figure 11) and (ii) of a precise control of the operating
conditions. Let us observe however that the influence of
target roughness on cavitation was not investigated.
Radial profiles of erosion are presented in figure 21
for an increasing exposure time. During about the first
30 hours of exposure to cavitation, there is no measurable
penetration of damage which is essentially characterized
by an increase in roughness. After this incubation period,
material is removed and the depth of penetration regularly
increases. Raw profiles shown in figure 21 exhibit a
strong roughness and require an averaging procedure for
smoothing. A moving averaging technique on 1 mm was
systematically applied before estimating the depth of
penetration.
0 84h
54h
-50
64h
-100 74h
Depth of penetration (µm)
-150 84h
-200 94h
-250
-300 104h
-350
-400
-450
15 20
Radial distance (mm)
Figure 21: Influence of the exposure time on radial
profile of erosion for the sample presented in figure 20.
For each time, two profiles are presented: (i) light gray:
raw data with a step of 10 µm (ii) thick black: moving
average data on 100 points or 1 mm. (The origins of
horizontal and vertical scales are arbitrary).
Let us observe that, because of the massive feature
and large weight of the sample, mass loss could not be
measured with a sufficient accuracy by weighting the
sample. Strictly speaking, present estimate is then a
volume loss and not a mass loss measurement.
The comparison of three different radial profiles
shown in figure 22 confirms a satisfactory axisymmetry
of the erosion pattern as already concluded from the
photograph of figure 20. The data on MDPR presented
below are relative to the average of these three smoothed
profiles. On the basis of these mean profiles, two
quantities are considered : (i) the maximum depth of
penetration and (ii) a mean depth of penetration defined
over a radial distance of 2 mm centred on the point of
maximum erosion. This last procedure presents the
advantage of smoothing the data and reducing the
dispersion since the damage is defined on a more global
basis. Both estimates of depth of penetration are shown in
figure 23.
0 34h
54h
64h
-50 74h
Depth of penetration (µm)
-100
0h
3h
8h
22h -150 94h
34h
-200
-250 104h
-300
-350
15 20 25 30
Radial distance (mm)
Figure 22: Effect of direction of analysis on radial profile
of erosion for the sample presented in figure 20. For each
exposure time, four profiles are superposed (i) light gray:
three mean profiles along three different radial directions
25 30
(ii) thick black: average of the three profiles. (The origins
of horizontal and vertical scales are arbitrary).
The evolution of the mean depth of penetration with
exposure time presented in figure 23 is quite
conventional. After an incubation period during which the
depth of penetration remains zero, an acceleration period
is observed followed by a quasi linear increase of the
depth of penetration with exposure time. The mean depth
of penetration rate (MDPR) is obtained by derivation with
respect to time. For further validation, special attention is
paid to the constant value of MDPR during the steady-
state regime of erosion. The existence of a steady-state
regime characterized by a linear increase of depth of
10
penetration with time is a good indicator of the invariance This equation is used to estimate the impact load σ
of the erosive potential of the cavitating flow, confirmed from the measured depth H of the indentation. It is valid
by pitting tests. The duration of this steady-state period for flows of moderate aggressiveness, i.e. for σ < σ U .
and the further evolution of mass-loss were not In the limit case of an impact load equal to the
investigated. material ultimate strength σ = σ U , the depth of the
indentation is:
80 2 ε L
Maximum depth H= U (22)
70 Mean depth (over 2 mm) 1+θ
Depth of penetration (µm)

MDPR ≅
In the case of high erosive potential defined by
60
1.16 µm/h
1,5 σ > σ U , material is removed and the depth of removed

MDPR (µm/h)
50 material given by equation (14) has to be added to the
previous deformation (22) to obtain the actual pit depth:
40 1
Incubation time ⎡ 1 ⎤
≅ 30 h εU L ⎢⎛ σ − σ Y ⎞ nθ ⎥
30 H= + L ⎢⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ − 1⎥ (23)
1+θ σ −σY ⎠
⎢⎝ U ⎥
20 0,5 ⎣ ⎦
10
Previous equation is valid only for σ > σ U .
Equations (21) and (23) are represented on figure 24.
0 0 For stainless steel 316 L, the limit value (22) estimated
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 using experimental data (2) and (3) is 15.8 µm. Since the
Exposure time (h) maximum measured pit depth on the sample of 800 pits
considered here is 4.8 µm (cf. figure 15), it can be
Figure 23: Mean depth of penetration (in black, left concluded that all impact loads are below the material
scale) and mean depth of penetration rate (in gray, right ultimate strength. The maximum load corresponding to
scale) versus exposure time. The gray curve is the time the maximum pit depth is 777 MPa. In other words, the
derivative of the thick black curve. Data are relative to present cavitating flow at velocity 65.3 m/s can be
the average of the three profiles presented in figure 22. considered of moderate aggressiveness. The influence of
flow velocity was not investigated here.
4. ANALYSIS 40
SS 316 L
4.1 Estimation of erosive potential

The first step for the computation of incubation time 30

Pit depth (µm)

ultimate strength: 1020 MPa

and erosion rate is the estimation of the erosive potential
of the cavitating flow in terms of the three integral
20
parameters considered here: mean impact load σ , mean
yield strength: 400 MPa
area of impact load S (or equivalent mean diameter D )
and pitting rate N . 10
For each pit, the impact load responsible for it is
deduced from the measurement of its maximum depth.
Let us first consider the case of an impact load σ smaller 0
400 600 800 1000 1200
than the ultimate strength σ U of the material. Plastic
deformation occurs without any material removal and the Amplitude of impact load (MPa)
depth of the resulting indentation is: Figure 24: Pit depth versus amplitude of impact load for
l stainless steel 316 L. The two curves correspond to
H=
∫ x =0
ε ( x ) dx (19) equations (21) if σ < σ U and (23) if σ > σ U .
The previous correspondence between pit depth and
Using equation (3) for the strain profile ε ( x ) inside
impact load is systematically applied to each pit. A
the material, we obtain:
distribution of hydrodynamic impact loads is then
ε l
H= 0 (20) obtained. In order to define a mean value representative
1+θ of the whole spectrum, an averaging procedure is used
and finally, by means of equation (7): based upon energy considerations.
1+θ
From a dimensional viewpoint, the product of pit
ε L ⎛ σ −σY ⎞ nθ
volume V and impact load σ has the units of energy.
H = U ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (21)
1 + θ ⎝ σU − σ Y ⎠ Hence, it was decided to define the mean impact load σ
by the following averaging procedure:

11
 σ =
∑Viσ i
∑Vi
where summation is relative to all identified pits.
Previous definition of mean impact load is based upon the
principle of conservation of energy discharged in the
material. In the present case, the mean impact load
(24)
For the present cavitating flow, the mean diameter of
impact loads is about 72 µm. This value is near the
characteristic value of pit diameter leading to maximum
damage as observed in figures 18 and 19.
6,5

N (impacts/cm²/s)
6
determined by equation (24) on the sample of 797
indentations is equal to 621 MPa. This value lies between 5,5
yield strength and ultimate strength which confirms that
5
the erosive potential of the present cavitating flow is
moderate and that fatigue and work-hardening processes 4,5
are prevailing.
The mean surface of impact load S is defined by a 4 ±6%
classical averaging procedure: 3,5
1
S= Si
ν
∑ (25) 0 200 400 600
Pit number
800

where ν is the total number of pits analyzed. As for the Figure 27: Influence of pit number on impact rate per
pitting rate N , it is simply the number of pits per unit unit time and unit surface area.
time and unit surface area.
4.2 Incubation time and MDPR
650
Once the flow aggressiveness defined by the
640 quantities σ , S and N has been quantified, it is
possible to apply the predictive method developed in
630 section 2.5 and 2.6 and particularly equations (12) and
σ (Mpa)

± 0,5%
(15) to predict the incubation period and mass loss rate.
620
Results are presented in the table below. The flow
aggressiveness has been estimated from eight different
610
surfaces similar to the one presented in figure 12 relative
to the same pitting test but to eight different angular
600
0 200 400 600 800
positions on the target at the same radius corresponding to
Pit number maximum damage.

Figure 25:Influence of pit number on mean amplitude of Surface MDPR Incubation

impact load. Pit number
N° (µm/h) time (h)
2 67 1.61 17.2
85
9 105 1.20 22.9
44 98 0.85 32.3
80 47 125 1.19 23.2
D (µm)

49 110 1.08 25.5

75 59 103 1.18 23.4
91 72 0.88 31.4
70 ±1% 93 117 1.02 27.3

Total mean
65 number of mean MDPR incubation
0 200 400 600 800 pits time
Pit number 797 pits 1.1 µm/h 25.4 h
Figure 26: Influence of pit number on mean diameter of Table 1: Estimation of incubation time and erosion rate
impact load. under steady state conditions from 8 different pitting test
samples
Figures 25 to 27 present the influence of the number
of pits used for the determination of flow aggressiveness There is obviously a non negligible dependence of
on each of the three variables σ , D and N . It appears the prediction on the pitted surface considered to evaluate
that flow aggressiveness can be considered as correctly the erosive potential. Following previous discussion on
defined by a sample of typically a few hundreds of pits. the influence of the size of the sample on the evaluation
of the erosive potential of the cavitating flow, it can be

12
expected that the mean values corresponding to the total
number of pits analyzed here (797 pits) should be
representative of the long term damage.
Table 1 shows that MDPR and incubation time are
strongly correlated. A small MDPR is associated to a long
exposure time, both being the consequence of a relatively
small aggressiveness. This has been observed by several
investigators. Soyama and Futakawa (2004) for instance
have recently shown that the incubation time can be
estimated by evaluating the amount of erosion at a post-
incubation point.
The mean value of the predicted MDPR based on
797 pits (1.1 µm/h) is in pretty good agreement with the
experimental measurement given in figure 23
(1.16 µm/h). The predicted incubation time is 25.4 h
which appears in reasonable agreement with the
experimental value (about 30 h as shown in figure 23).
threshold
ultimate strain and subsequent mass loss are uniformly
reached on the whole material surface. There is no
difference between the end of the incubation period and
the beginning of the steady-state erosion period so that a
step-like behaviour for MDPR versus exposure time is
found. A more realistic variation with an acceleration
period would be obtained by considering the whole
spectrum of impact loads (and not only average values)
and assuming that impact loads are randomly distributed
in space as shown by Berchiche et al. (2002). If so,
ultimate strain is not instantaneously but progressively
reached on the material surface depending upon the
amplitude of successive impact loads and their possible
partial overlapping. This results in a transitional regime
between incubation and steady-state erosion characterized
by a gradual increase of the erosion rate. However, in the
present paper, we have deliberately chosen to ignore the
random distribution in space, size and amplitude of
impact loads in order to be able to derive analytical
relationships and more easily point out the key
parameters of the damage process.
A final remark concerns the evaluation of the

influence of the threshold chosen for the analysis of

pitting tests on the prediction of the incubation period and
erosion rate. An excessive value of the threshold tends to
underestimate the number and size of pits whereas a too
small value will overestimate them. It is difficult to derive
an objective criterion for the choice of this threshold.
Here, it is done by a qualitative comparison of the binary
0.8µm

image obtained after applying the threshold to the original

one. From figure 28, it is clear that the two extreme
thresholds 0.8 µm and 0.3 µm are not acceptable whereas
the threshold 0.5 µm is considered to give a relatively
satisfactory description of the pitted surface.

80 4,8
chosen threshold: 0.5µm

70 4,2
e
tim
0.5µm

Incubation time (h)

60 3,6
on
MD

at i

MDPR (µm/h)
ub
PR

in c

50 3,0

40 2,4
exp.
30 incubation 1,8
time
20 experimental MDPR 1,2

10 0,6
0.3µm

0 0,0
0,20 0,30 0,40 0,50 0,60 0,70 0,80 0,90
Depth threshold (µm)
Figure 29: Influence of depth threshold on predicted
incubation period and erosion rate.
Figure 28: Influence of depth threshold on the treatment
of a pitting test (same surface as in figure 12). The influence of this threshold on the predicted
incubation time and erosion rate is presented in figure 29
Let us observe that the present simplified model fails together with the experimental measurements. The higher
at predicting the acceleration period clearly visible on the threshold, the higher the incubation time and the
figure 23. This is due to the consideration of a unique smaller the erosion rate. Although the predicted values
mean value σ for the impact load. As a consequence,

13
depend upon the precise value of the threshold, figure 29
shows that in the range 0.4 - 0.6 which is considered here
as acceptable, they remain of the same order of
magnitude as in experiments.
5. CONCLUDING REMARKS
The present paper focuses on the prediction of
incubation time and erosion rate of ductile materials
exposed to a cavitating flow. From a dimensional
viewpoint, the erosion rate measured in terms of the mean
depth of penetration rate (MDPR) has the dimension of a
velocity i.e. of a characteristic length divided by a
characteristic time. The present work suggests that :
(i) The relevant time scale is the covering time τ, i.e.
the time necessary for the surface to be exactly covered
by the hydrodynamic impacts. This time depends upon
the impact rate and the mean size of the loaded areas. It is
a characteristic of the cavitating flow in so far as it
depends mainly upon hydrodynamic features as the
bubble density, size, distance to the wall…
(ii) The relevant length scale for ductile materials is
the thickness of the hardened layer L. It can be
determined from microhardness measurements on cross
sections of eroded specimens. This is essentially a
material characteristic, although it might integrate to
some extend the very specific type of loading due to
bubble collapses since it is determined on specimens
actually eroded by cavitation.
MDPR can then be estimated by the ratio L/τ with a
multiplicative factor which depends principally upon the
flow aggressiveness in terms of the mean amplitude of the
hydrodynamic impact loads. It is zero in the limit case of
impact loads equal to the yield strength and progressively
increases with the flow aggressiveness. A quasi-analytical
formulation is proposed to estimate this factor.
As for the incubation time, it is shown that it is
proportional to the covering time and that the ratio is
strongly dependent upon the flow aggressiveness. For
impact loads close to the ultimate strength of the material,
the incubation time matches with the covering time.
When the impact load approaches the yield strength of the
material i.e. for flows of relatively small aggressiveness,
the incubation time increases considerably and can be
several orders of magnitude larger than the covering time.
A simple model is proposed here to account for this
variation.
The model is supported by an experimental
investigation in which erosion is produced by a cavitating
flow in a radial divergent. Pitting tests are used to
quantify the erosive potential of the flow. Hydrodynamic
impact loads are deduced from the measurement of
maximum pit depth by means of a model of response of
the material. As for the rate and surface area of the
impacts, they are deduced from pitting rate and pit size.
The estimated aggressiveness of the cavitating flow is
then introduced in the model in order to predict the
incubation period and mass loss rate under steady state
conditions. Predictions are compared to experimental
14
values obtained from mass loss tests. The tested material
is stainless steel 316 L which is known to exhibit high
work hardening. On the whole, the agreement between
predicted and measured values of the incubation time and
MDPR are satisfactory.
The present approach is based upon an elementary
modeling of the flow aggressiveness. It consists in
approximating the whole impact load spectrum by mean
values of both the impact loads and the impacted areas.
This results in a step-like variation of the erosion rate
versus the exposure time with no mass loss within the
incubation time and a constant steady state erosion
beyond. The acceleration period which actually exists
between the incubation and the steady-state periods is in
fact due to the wide distribution of impact loads. This
makes that the ultimate strength is not uniformly reached
on the material surface so that highly loaded areas
undergo rupture before less loaded areas. The spatially
random nature of the hydrodynamic impacts is another
reason responsible for the non uniformity of the surface
strain. Both result in a progressive increase of the erosion
rate which is typical of the acceleration period.
The objective of the present work was essentially to
contribute to elucidate the erosion mechanism of ductile
materials and point out the major parameters which
control the damaging process. Although it is still under
development, the present technique of prediction of
cavitation erosion can be considered as a future
alternative to more conventional techniques based on
correlations with various material properties as Vickers
hardness (Hattori et al., 2004), fatigue tests (Bedkowski et
al., 1999) or others.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The present research has been conducted in the
framework of the European Project "Prevero" under
contract No. ENK6-CT-2002-00605. The authors are
particularly grateful to AVL, coordinator of the project,
and all other partners of the consortium for fruitful
discussions. The authors would also like to acknowledge
the help provided by J.C. Jay, Y. Lecoffre and
J.M. Michel for the design of the test facility.
NOMENCLATURE
H Maximum pit depth (m)
K Constant in stress/strain relationship (1) (Pa)
l Thickness of hardened layer for partial
hardening (m)
L Thickness of hardened layer for complete
hardening (m)
MDPR Mean depth of penetration rate (m/s)
n Exponent in stress/strain relationship (1) (-)
N Impact rate per unit surface area (impacts/m2/s)
pd Downstream pressure in test section (Pa)
pu Upstream pressure in test section (Pa)
pv Vapour pressure (Pa)
S Mean size of impacted area (m2)
T Incubation time (s)
V Pit volume (m3)
Vc Reference velocity on cavity (equation 18) (m/s)
W Energy absorbed by the material (equation 8) (J)
x Distance inside the material from surface (m)
β Parameter defined by equation (10) (-)
εU Ultimate strain (-)
ε Strain (-)
ε' Virtual surface strain during steady-state erosion
period (cf. section 2.6) (-)
θ Metallurgical shape factor (equation 3) (-)
σ Cavitation number (equation 16) (-)
or Stress (Pa)
σ Mean amplitude of impact loads (Pa)
σU Material ultimate tensile strength (Pa)
σY Material yield strength (Pa)
τ Covering time 1 / NS (s)
REFERENCES
Bedkowski W., Gasiak G., Lachowicz C., Lichtarowicz
A., Lagoda T. & Macha E. (1999) "Relations between
cavitation erosion resistance of materials and their
fatigue strength under random loading" Wear, Vol.230,
pp.201-209
Belahadji B., Franc J.P. & Michel J.M. (1991) "A
statistical analysis of cavitation erosion pits" Journal of
Fluids Engineering, Vol.113, pp.700-706
Berchiche N., Franc J.P. and Michel J.M. (2002) "A
cavitation erosion model for ductile materials" ASME
J. Fluids Eng., 124, pp.601-606
Fortes Patella R., Reboud J.L. & Archer A. (2000)
"Cavitation damage measurement by 3D laser
profilometry" Wear, Vol.246, pp.59-67
Franc J.P. & Michel J.M. (1997) "Cavitation erosion
research in France: the state of the art" Journal of
Marine Science and Technology, Vol.2, pp.233-244
Franc J.P., Michel J.M., Nguyen Trong H. & Karimi
(1994) "From pressure pulses measurements to mass
loss prediction: the analysis of a method" Kato H. (ed),
Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. on Cavitation, April 1994, Tokyo,
Japan, pp.231-236
Fry S.A. (1989) "The damage capacity of cavitating flow
from pulse height analysis" Journal of Fluids
Engineering, Vol.111, December 1989, pp.502-509
Hammitt F.G. (June 1979) "Cavitation erosion: the state
of the art and predicting capability" Applied Mechanics
Reviews, Vol.32, N°6, pp.665-675
⎯⎯⎯⎯
15
Hattori S., Ishikura R. & Zhang Q. (2004) "Construction
of (s)
database on cavitation erosion and analyses of
carbon steel data" Wear, Vol.257, Issues 9-10,
November 2004, pp.1022-1029
Hattori S., Maeda K. & Zhang Q. (2004) "Formulation of
cavitation erosion behavior based on logistic analysis",
Wear, Vol. 257, Issues 9-10, November 2004, pp.1064-
1070
Karimi A. and Leo W.R. (1987) "Phenomenological
model for cavitation rate computation" Mater. Sci.,
Eng, 95, pp.1-14
Karimi A. and Martin J.L. (1986) "Cavitation erosion of
materials", Int. Met. Rev., 31, N°1, pp.1-26
Knapp R.T., Daily J.W. & Hammitt F.G. (1970)
"Cavitation", McGraw-Hill
Li S., Zhang Y. & Hammitt F.G. (1986) "Characteristics
of cavitation bubble collapse pulses, associated
pressure fluctuations, and flow noise" Journal of
Hydraulic Research, Vol.24, N°2, pp.109-122
Momma T. & Lichtarowicz A. (1995) A study of
pressures and erosion produced by collapsing
cavitation" Wear, Vol.186-187, pp.425-436
Nguyen The M., Franc J.P. & Michel J.M. (1987) "On
correlating pitting rate and pressure peak measurements
in cavitating flows" Holl J.W. & Billet M.L. (eds),
Proc. of ASME Int. Symp. on Cavitation Research
Facilities and Techniques, FED-Vol.57, ASME, Boston,
December 13-18, 1987, pp.207-216
Okada T., Iwai Y., Hattori S. and Tanimura N. (1995)
"Relation between impact load and the damage
produced by cavitation bubble collapse" Wear, Vol.184,
pp.231-239
Soyama H., Lichtarowicz A., Momma T. & Williams E.J.
(1998) "A new calibration method for dynamically
loaded transducers and its application to cavitation
impact measurement" Journal of Fluids Engineering,
Vol.120, December 1998, pp.712-717
Soyama Y. & Futakawa M. (2004) "Estimation of
incubation time of cavitation erosion for various
cavitating conditions" Tribology letters, Vol.17, N°1,
July 2004, pp.27-30
Thiruvengadam A. (1974) "Handbook of cavitation
erosion" Hydronautics Inc., Technical Report 7301-1