Experimental comparison of cavitation erosion rates of different steels used in hydraulic turbines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prediction of cavitation erosion rates has an important role in order to evaluate the exact life of components in fluid machineries. Hydro-Québec has studied this phenomenon for several years, in particular in hydraulic turbine runners, to try to understand the different degradation mechanisms related to this phenomenon. This paper presents part of this work. In this study, we carried out experimental erosion tests to compare different steels used in actual hydraulic turbine runners (carbon steels, austenitic and martensitic stainless steels) to high strength steels in terms of cavitation erosion resistance. The results for these different classes of steels are presented. The tests have been performed in a cavitating liquid jet apparatus according to the ASTM G134-95 standard to simulate the flow conditions. The mass loss has been followed during the exposure time. The maximum depth of erosion, the mean depth of erosion, and the mean depth erosion rate are determined. As a result we found that ASTM-A514 high strength steels present excellent cavitation erosion resistance properties. The cavitation eroded surface is followed by optical profilometry technique. Determination of mechanical properties and examinations of the eroded surfaces of the samples have also been carried out in order to identify the erosion mechanisms involved in the degradation of these kinds of materials.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".