| People | Locations | Statistics |
|---|---|---|
| Naji, M. |
| |
| Motta, Antonella |
| |
| Aletan, Dirar |
| |
| Mohamed, Tarek |
| |
| Ertürk, Emre |
| |
| Taccardi, Nicola |
| |
| Kononenko, Denys |
| |
| Petrov, R. H. | Madrid |
|
| Alshaaer, Mazen | Brussels |
|
| Bih, L. |
| |
| Casati, R. |
| |
| Muller, Hermance |
| |
| Kočí, Jan | Prague |
|
| Šuljagić, Marija |
| |
| Kalteremidou, Kalliopi-Artemi | Brussels |
|
| Azam, Siraj |
| |
| Ospanova, Alyiya |
| |
| Blanpain, Bart |
| |
| Ali, M. A. |
| |
| Popa, V. |
| |
| Rančić, M. |
| |
| Ollier, Nadège |
| |
| Azevedo, Nuno Monteiro |
| |
| Landes, Michael |
| |
| Rignanese, Gian-Marco |
|
Lhuissier, Pierre
in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%
Topics
Publications (31/31 displayed)
- 2024Influence of microstructure heterogeneity on the tensile response of an Aluminium alloy designed for laser powder bed fusioncitations
- 2024In-situ 3D X-ray investigation of ceramic powder sintering at the particle length-scalecitations
- 2024Microstructure evolutions induced by electron beam melting of a sintered Cu-25Cr composite
- 2024Multi-scale Cu-Cr composites using elemental powder blending in laser powder-bed fusioncitations
- 2024Influence of the processing route on the mechanical properties of Cu–35Cr metal matrix compositescitations
- 2024Exploring the sintering behavior of a complex ceramic powder system using in-situ X-ray nano-tomographycitations
- 20233D microstructure characterization of Cu 25Cr solid state sintered alloy using X-ray computed tomography and machine learning assisted segmentationcitations
- 2023Influence of microstructure on mass loss caused by acoustic and hydrodynamic cavitation ; Effet de la microstructure sur la perte de masse engendrée par la cavitation acoustique et hydrodynamique
- 2023In-situ 3D X-ray investigation of ceramic powder sintering at the particle length-scalecitations
- 2023Comparison of acoustic and hydrodynamic cavitation: material point of view ; Comparaison entre cavitation ultrasonore et hydrodynamique : point de vue du matériaucitations
- 2023Influence of microstructure on mass loss caused by acoustic and hydrodynamic cavitation
- 2023Towards an alloy design strategy by tuning liquid local ordering: What solidification of an Al-alloy designed for laser powder bed fusion teaches uscitations
- 2022Stabilizing post-yielding behavior of a stretching dominated lattice structure through microstructural optimizationcitations
- 2022Reconstructing dual-phase nanometer scale grains within a pearlitic steel tip in 3D through 4D-scanning precession electron diffraction tomography and automated crystal orientation mappingcitations
- 2022Optimization of the strength vs. conductivity trade-off in an aluminium alloy designed for laser powder bed fusioncitations
- 2022Comparison of acoustic and hydrodynamic cavitation: material point of view ; Comparaison entre cavitation ultrasonore et hydrodynamique : point de vue du matériaucitations
- 2022Comparison of acoustic and hydrodynamic cavitation: material point of viewcitations
- 20223D grain mapping by laboratory X-ray diffraction contrast tomography implemented on a conventional tomography setupcitations
- 2021High-temperature deformation followed in situ by X-ray microtomography: a methodology to track features under large straincitations
- 2020Surface defects sensitivity during the unfolding of corrugated struts made by powder-bed Additive Manufacturingcitations
- 2020Influence of manufacturing orientations on the morphology of alloy 718 single struts manufactured by selective laser meltingcitations
- 2020Arthropod entombment in weathering-formed opal: new horizons for recording life in rockscitations
- 2020Strength of porous oxide microspheres: the role of internal porosity and defectscitations
- 2019Understanding the Interdependence of Penetration Depth and Deformation on Nanoindentation of Nanoporous Silvercitations
- 2017Fast in situ 3D nanoimaging: a new tool for dynamic characterization in materials sciencecitations
- 2016Geometrical control of lattice structures produced by EBM through chemical etching: Investigations at the scale of individual strutscitations
- 2016Heterogeneities in local plastic flow behavior in a dissimilar weld between low-alloy steel and stainless steelcitations
- 2015Mechanical equivalent diameter of single struts for the stiffness prediction of lattice structures produced by Electron Beam Meltingcitations
- 2014X-Ray Tomography and Small-Angle Neutron Scattering Characterization of Nano-Composites:Static and In Situ Experimentscitations
- 2013Règles de Conception pour la Fabrication Additive de Matériaux Cellulaires en Titane par " Electron Beam Melting "
- 2013Design Rules for Additive Manufacturing of Titanium Cellular Structures by Electron Beam Melting
Places of action
| Organizations | Location | People |
|---|
article
Comparison of acoustic and hydrodynamic cavitation: material point of view
Abstract
This study investigated the difference of mechanical response of the martensitic stainless steel X3CrNiMo13-4/S41500/CA6NM QT780 between hydrodynamic and acoustic cavitation erosion. Results show that acoustic cavitation erosion generates small pits at high temporal frequency on the material while hydrodynamic cavitation erosion produces larger pits at a lower frequency. Acoustic cavitation erosion tests have been performed using a 20 kHz ultrasonic horn located at 500 µm in front of a specimen. This experimental setup, known-as indirect method, is inspired by the ASTM G32 standard. Hydrodynamic cavitation erosion tests were performed at a constant cavitation number equal to 0.870 corresponding to a flow velocity of 90 m.s-1 and upstream pressure of 40 bars. In addition, for a given exposure time the percentage of surface covered by the pits is smaller for acoustic cavitation than for hydrodynamic cavitation. Three successive steps have been identified during the damage process: persistent slip bands (PSB) first appear on the surface, cracks initiate and propagate at the PSB locations and non-metallic interfaces and finally parts of matter are torn off. A careful time examination of the same small area of the exposed sample surface by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) reveals that acoustic cavitation is faster to initiate damage than hydrodynamic cavitation.