You are being redirected because this document is part of your ASTM Compass® subscription.
    This document is part of your ASTM Compass® subscription.

    Volume 7, Issue 5 (November 2018)

    Special Issue Paper

    Cavitation Erosion Resistance Assessment and Comparison of Three Francis Turbine Runner Materials

    (Received 30 January 2018; accepted 8 August 2018)

    Published Online: 2018

    CODEN: MPCACD

      Format Pages Price  
    PDF (2.00 MB) 20 $25   ADD TO CART

    Cite this document

    X Add email address send
    X
      .RIS For RefWorks, EndNote, ProCite, Reference Manager, Zoteo, and many others.   .DOCX For Microsoft Word



    Abstract

    Cavitation erosion is the most important erosion mechanism in Francis turbine runner blades. For this reason, knowledge of a material’s ability to resist cavitation is important in defining how suitable it is for use in a Francis turbine. In this study, three Francis turbine materials were subjected to cavitation erosion in a high-speed cavitation tunnel. One of the materials was a low-alloy steel, and the other two were stainless steels. The cavitation tunnel produced an annular cavitation field on one face of a cylindrical specimen. The test specimens underwent cavitation erosion until the erosion had reached a maximum penetration depth of about 0.5 mm. The material surface profiles were measured at regular intervals to calculate volume and mass loss. These losses were compared to those of several other materials that had undergone the same tests with the same setup and operational parameters. The materials were compared according to their steady-state erosion rates. The steady-state erosion rate represents a material’s ability to resist cavitation erosion once cavitation damage has already started to develop. The low-alloy steel eroded four times faster than the two stainless steels. One of the stainless steels tested here (Stainless steel 1) had the lowest erosion rate, along with another previously tested stainless steel. The other stainless steel (Stainless steel 2) had a slightly greater erosion rate than the first, falling into the same class as other lower-grade stainless steels and a nickel aluminum bronze alloy. The results show that in choosing a turbine blade material, stainless steels outperform nonstainless ones. The choice of which type of stainless steel to use is significant in turbines with cavitation problems. The eroded surfaces were analyzed with scanning electron microscopy in order to study the erosion mechanisms, and these studies showed that most of the damage is probably due to low-cycle fatigue.

    Author Information:

    Ylönen, Markku
    Université Grenoble Alpes, Saint-Martin-d’Heres, Grenoble

    Tampere University of Technology, Tampere,

    Saarenrinne, Pentti
    Tampere University of Technology, Tampere,

    Miettinen, Juha
    Tampere University of Technology, Tampere,

    Franc, Jean-Pierre
    Université Grenoble Alpes, Rue de la Piscine, Grenoble

    Fivel, Marc
    Université Grenoble Alpes, Saint-Martin-d’Heres, Grenoble

    Nyyssönen, Tuomo
    Tampere University of Technology, Tampere,


    Stock #: MPC20180015

    ISSN:2379-1365

    DOI: 10.1520/MPC20180015

    Author
    Title Cavitation Erosion Resistance Assessment and Comparison of Three Francis Turbine Runner Materials
    Symposium ,
    Committee G02